![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Martin wrote:
> 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.
Why not use cpus_allowed for this, via cpusets and/or sched_setaffinity?
In the followup to this between Paul M. and myself, I wrote:
> As best as I can tell, the two motivations for explicity setting
> sched domain partitions are:
> 1) isolating cpus for real time uses very sensitive to any interference,
> 2) handling load balancing on huge CPU counts, where the worse than linear
> algorithms start to hurt.
> ...
> How many CPUs are you juggling?
And Paul M. replied:
> Not many by your standards - less than eight in general.
So ... it would seem you have neither huge CPU counts nor real time
sensitivities.
So why not use cpus_allowed?
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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: 2006-10-22 12:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||