Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:03:00 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 12:52 -0800, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > >> @@ -174,11 +174,20 @@ struct irq_desc { > >> #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS > >> struct proc_dir_entry *dir; > >> #endif > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS > >> + struct cpuset *cs; > >> +#endif > > > > i like this approach - it makes irqs more resource-alike and attaches > > them to a specific resource control group. > > > > So if /cgroup/boot is changed to have less CPUs then the "default" irqs > > move along with it. > > > > but if an isolated RT domain has specific irqs attached to it (say the > > IRQ of some high-speed data capture device), then the irqs would move > > together with that domain. > > > > irqs are no longer a bolted-upon concept, but more explicitly managed. > > > > [ If you boot-test it and if Paul agrees with the general approach then > > i could even apply it to sched-devel.git ;-) ] > > Believe it or not but I like it too :). > Now we're talking different approach compared to the cpu_isolated_map since > with this patch cpu_system_map is no longer needed. > I've been playing with latest sched-devel tree and while I think we'll endup > adding a lot more code, doing it with the cpuset is definitely more flexible. > This way we can provide more fine grain control of what part of the "system" > services are allowed to run on a cpuset. Rather that "catch all" system flag. > > Current sched-devel tree does not provide complete isolation at this point. > There are still many things here and there that need to be added/fixed. > Having finer control here helps. > > One concern I have is that this API conflicts with /proc/irq/X/smp_affinity. > ie Setting smp_affinity manually will override affinity set by the cpuset. > In other words I think > int irq_set_affinity(unsigned int irq, cpumask_t cpumask) > now needs to make sure that cpumask does not have cpus that do not belong to > the cpuset this irq belongs to. Just like sched_setaffinity() does for the tasks.
The patch also needs to handle group destruction too; currently it leaves cpuset pointers dangling. So it would either have to refuse removing a group when there are still irqs associated, or move them to the parent.
But yeah, this was just a quick hack to show the idea, glad you like it. Will try to flesh it out a bit in the coming week.
| |