![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Paul Jackson wrote: > Dinakar wrote: > >>IMO this patch addresses just one of the requirements for partitionable >>sched domains > > > Correct - this particular patch was just addressing one of these. > > Nick raised the reasonable concern that this patch was adding something > to cpusets that was not especially related to cpusets. Did you send resend the patch to remove sched-domain partitioning? After clearing up my confusion, IMO that is needed and could probably go into 2.6.19. > So I will not be sending this patch to Andrew for *-mm. > > There are further opportunities for improvements in some of this code, > which my colleague Christoph Lameter may be taking an interest in. > Ideally kernel-user API's for isolating and partitioning sched domains > would arise from that work, though I don't know if we can wait that > long. The sched-domains code is all there and just ready to be used. IMO using the cpusets API (or a slight extension thereof) would be the best idea if we're going to use any explicit interface at all. A cool option would be to determine the partitions according to the disjoint set of unions of cpus_allowed masks of all tasks. I see this getting computationally expensive though, probably O(tasks*CPUs)... I guess that isn't too bad. Might be better than a userspace interface. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-10-23 07:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||