[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: fix sched-domains partitioning by cpusets
Nick wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion: I only meant the sched.c part of that
> patch, not the full thing.

Ah - ok. We're getting closer then. Good.

Let me be sure I've got this right then.

You prefer the interface from your proposed patch, by which the
cpuset code passes sched domain requests to the scheduler code a single
cpumask that will define a sched domain:

int partition_sched_domains(cpumask_t *partition)

and I am suggesting instead a new and different interface:

void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_new, cpumask_t *doms_new)

In the first API, one cpumask is passed in, and a single sched
domain is formed, taking those CPUs from any sched domain they
might have already been a member of, into this new sched domain.

In the second API, the entire flat partitioning is passed in,
giving an array of masks, one mask for each desired sched domain.
The passed in masks do not overlap, but might not cover all CPUs.

Question -- how does one turn off load balancing on some CPUs
using the first API?

Does one do this by forming singleton sched domains of one
CPU each? Is there any downside to doing this?

The simplest cpuset code to work with this would end up exposing
this method of disabling load balancing to user space, forcing
users to create cpusets with one CPU each to be able do disable
load balancing.

However a little bit of additional kernel cpuset code could hide
this detail from user space, by recognizing when the user had
asked to turn off load balancing on some larger cpuset, and by
then calling partition_sched_domains() multiple times, once for
each CPU in that cpuset.

There might be an even simpler way. If the kernel/sched.c routines
detach_destroy_domains() and build_sched_domains() were exposed as
external routines, then the cpuset code could call them directly,
removing the partition_sched_domains() routine from sched.c entirely.
Would this be worth persuing?

I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-03 11:23    [W:0.068 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site