Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:31:55 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
| |
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:50:11 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > My vision on the direction we should take wrt cpu isolation. > > > > Next on the list would be figuring out a nice solution to the > > workqueue flush issue. > > nice work Peter, i find this "system sets" extension to cpusets a much > more elegant (and much more future-proof) solution than the proposed > spreadout of the limited hack of isolcpus/cpu_isolated_map. It > concentrates us on a single API and on a single mechanism to handle > isolation matters. (be that for clustering/supercomputing or real-time > purposes) > > Thanks for insisting on using cpusets for this! > > i've queued up your patches in sched-devel.git, and lets make sure this > has no side-effects on existing functionality. (it shouldnt) >
It of course lays waste to a series of cgroup patches from Paul Menage which I already had queued.
So I shall drop git-sched again.
How often do I have to say this? git-sched is not git-everything-which-looks-shiny! It is for the CPU scheduler.
If you had put this patchset into a private branch for private testing, or even into a separate git-petes-stuff then I wouldn't have to collaterally drop the entirety of git-sched because of this.
Sigh.
| |