Nick Piggin wrote:
set_cpus_allowed is a feature of the scheduler that allows you to
restrict one task to a subset of all cpus. Right?
And cpusets uses this interface as the mechanism to implement the
semantics which the user has asked for. Yes?
sched-domains partitioning is a feature of the scheduler that
allows you to restrict zero or more tasks to the partition, and
zero or more tasks to the complement of the partition. OK?
So if you have a particular policy you need to implement, which is
one cpus_exclusive cpuset off the root, covering half the cpus in
the system (as a simple example)... why is it good to implement
that with set_cpus_allowed and bad to implement it with partitions?
Or, another question, how does my patch hijack cpus_allowed? In
what way does it change the semantics of cpus_allowed?
That should be, in what way does it change the semantics of cpusets
in any way?
IOW, how could a user possibly notice or care that partitions are
being used to implement a given policy? (apart from the fact that
the balancing will work better).
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
