I have been wanting to follow the cpumeter discussion more closely,
but currently am tied up. I hope to have more time towards the end of
this week.
I had a few queries below, though
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 12:01:59AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Dinikar,
>
> How much grief will it cause you if I make the following incompatible
> change to the special boolean files in each cpuset directory?
>
> I think I goofed in encouraging you to overload "cpu_exclusive"
> with defining dynamic scheduler domains. I should have asked for a
> separate flag to be added for that, say "sched_domain", which would
> require "cpu_exclusive=1" as a precondition. Other attributes that
> require cpu_exclusive or mem_exclusive are showing up, and it makes
> more sense for each of them to get their own boolean, and leave the
> "*_exclusive" flags to specify just the exclusive (no overlap with
> sibling) attribute.
One of the reasons for overloading the cpu_exclusive flag was to
ensure that the rebalance code does not try to pull tasks unnecessarily
With the scheme that you are proposing that is a possibility if
you turn on the cpu_exclusive and meter_cpu for example and not
turn on sched_domain. Is there a reason why we would want to have
exclusive cpusets not attached to sched domains at all?
I am not entirely convinced that we can compare sched_domains and
meter_cpus.
However I am still open if there is a convincing reason to have
exclusive cpusets that dont form sched domains.
-Dinakar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
