Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:48:11 -0800 | From | Max Krasnyanskiy <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
| |
Ingo Molnar 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) Come on Ingo. You make it sounds like it's radically different solution. At the end of the day we have a bitmap that represents which CPUs can be used for the kernel stuff. How is that different ? I was saying all along that cpusets is a higher level API and was discussing or trying to discuss (people were ignoring my questions) ways to integrate it.
> 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) Hmm, that was easy. Not a single ack. Even the core part is not complete yet. I pointed out several issues. Like the fact that it does not provide full isolation because it does not move timers, does not handle workqueues. I did not even get a chance to test this stuff properly and see if it actually solves the usecase I was solving with my patches. _Obviously_ we could not have taken my tested solution and evolved it in the direction people wanted to see it evolve, ie integration with the cpusets :(.
My main concern is that it introduces a whole new set of notifiers that perform similar functions to what CPU hotplut already does.
Max
| |