![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 12:12 -0700, Max Krasnyansky wrote: > > Paul Jackson wrote:> > Max replied:> >>> I did not see your reply. Did you send it to me or lkml?> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121207910616332&w=2> > > > Ah - ok - I got that reply, and then lost track of it. My bad. > > > > Max wrote, in that earlier reply:> >> Since we do not plan on supporting it I'd say lets get rid of it.> > > > This doesn't make sense to me. We don't just decree that we aren't > > planning on supporting something that's already out there and being > > used, and then remove it, on the grounds we aren't supporting it. > > > > Faceless beauracracies can get away with that ... we can do better.> > Ok. Let me ask you this. Would you be ok with a patch that exposes (via sysctl > for example) scheduler balancer mask when cpusets are disabled ? > In other words it will look something like this:> - Rename cpu_isolated_map to sched_balancer_map> - If cpusets are enabled> o balancer map is compiled out or a noop > o isolcpus= boot param is compiled out > > - If cpusets are disabled > o balancer map can be changed via /proc/sys/kernel/sched_balancer_mask > writing to it rebuilds scheduler domains > cpus not in the mask will be put into NULL domain > o isolcpus= boot param is available for compatibility > > Why do this ? > Two reasons. It would not longer be a hack, it simply exposes scheduler > feature that is not otherwise available without cpusets. And there is no > conflict with sched domain management when cpusets are enabled. ie cpuset have > exclusive control on domains). Uhm, might be me but those two answers are not an answer to the question posed. Anyway, no, yuck! - let just get rid of it. | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-06-01 11:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||