![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 10/19/06, Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com> wrote: > > > I don't know of anyone else using cpusets, but I'd be interested to know. > > We (Google) are planning to use it to do some partitioning, albeit on > much smaller machines. I'd really like to NOT use cpus_allowed from > previous experience - if we can get it to to partition using separated > sched domains, that would be much better. Actually, what we'd really like is to be able to set cpus_allowed in arbitrary ways (we're already doing this via sched_setaffinity() - doing it via cpusets would just be an optimization when changing cpu masks) and have the scheduler automatically do balancing efficiently. In some cases sched domains might be appropriate, but in most of the cases we have today, we have a job that's running with a CPU reserved for itself but also has access to a "public" CPU, and some CPUs are not public, but shared amongst a set of jobs. I'm not very familiar with the sched domains code but I guess it doesn't handle overlapping cpu masks very well? Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-21 20:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||