[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:25:15PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> It sounds like the problem with my code is that "null sched domain"
> translates into "default root-domain" which is understandably unexpected
> by Dimitri (and myself). Really I intended root-domains to become
> associated with each exclusive/disjoint cpuset that is created. In a
> way, non-balanced/isolated cpus could be modeled as an exclusive cpuset
> with one member, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of the

Actually, at one time, that is how things were setup. Setting the
cpu_exclusive bit on a single cpu cpuset would isolate that cpu from
load balancing.

> root-domain code as it stands today. My primary concern was that
> Dimitri reports that even creating a disjoint cpuset per cpu does not
> yield an isolated root-domain per cpu. Rather they all end up in the
> default root-domain, and this is not what I intended at all.
> However, as a secondary goal it would be nice to somehow directly
> support the "no-load-balance" option without requiring explicit
> exclusive per-cpu cpusets to do it. The proper mechanism (IMHO) to
> scope the scheduler to a subset of cpus (including only "self") is
> root-domains so I would prefer to see the solution based on that.
> However, today there is a rather tight coupling of root-domains and
> cpusets, so this coupling would likely have to be relaxed a little bit
> to get there.
> There are certainly other ways to solve the problem as well. But seeing
> as how I intended root-domains to represent the effective partition
> scope of the scheduler, this seems like a natural fit in my mind until
> its proven to me otherwise.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-19 21:37    [W:0.103 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site