lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateSat, 2 Feb 2008 00:16:12 -0600
FromPaul Jackson <>
SubjectRe: Integrating cpusets and cpu isolation [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions]
Digg This
Max wrote:
Here is the list of things of issues with sched_load_balance flag from CPU isolation perspective:

A separate thread happened to start up on lkml.org, shortly after yours, that went into this in considerable detail.

For example, the interaction of cpusets, sched_load_balance, sched_domains and real time scheduling is examined in some detail on this thread. Everyone participating on that thread learned something (we all came into it with less than a full picture of what's there.)
I would encourage you to read it closely. For example, the scheduler code should not be trying to access per-cpuset attributes such as the sched_load_balance flag (you are correct that this would be
difficult to do because of the locking; however by design, that is
not to be done.)
This thread begins at:

scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/29/60

Too bad we didn't think to include you in the CC list of that thread from the beginning.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214


\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2008-02-02 06:17    [W:12.278 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans