Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:51 -0800 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: > >>> i've queued up your patches in sched-devel.git >> Before this patchset gets too far, I'd like to decide on whether to >> adapt my suggestion to call that per-cpuset flag 'cpus_system' (or >> anything else with 'cpu' in it, perhaps 'system_cpus' would be more >> idiomatic), rather than the tad too generic 'system'. > > yeah. In fact i'm not at all sure this is really a "system" thing - it's > more of a "bootup" default. > once the system has booted up and the user is in a position to create > cpusets, i believe the distinction and assymetry between any bootup > cpuset and the other cpusets should vanish. The "bootup" cpuset is just > a convenience container to handle everything that the box booted up > with, and then we can shrink it (without having to enumerate every PID > and every irq and other resource explicitly) to make place for other > cpusets. > > maybe it's even more idomatic to call it "set0" and just create a > /dev/cpuset/set0/ directory for it and making it an explicit cpuset - > instead of the hardcoded /dev/cpusets/system thing? Do you have any > established naming scheme for cpusets that we could follow here?
I think that is a separate thing. Bootup default is one thing and being able to explicitly allow/disallow kernel activity on a CPU(s) is another.
I think "boot" or "set0" makes perfect sense. In fact that was the first thing I noticed when I started playing with it. ie Even if I just wanted to isolated one cpu I now need to create a cpuset for the other cpus and move all the tasks there explicitly. It'd be very useful if it happens by default.
Max
| |