On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:17, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > OK, so I don't exactly understand you either. To make it simple, can
> > you give a concrete example of a cpuset hierarchy that wouldn't
> > work?
>
> It's more a matter of knowing how my third party batch scheduler
> coders think. They will be off in some corner of their code with a
> cpuset in hand that they know is just being used to hold inactive
> (paused) tasks, and they can likely be persuaded to mark those cpusets
> as not being in need of any wasted CPU cycles load balancing them.
There won't be any CPU cycles used, if the tasks are paused (surely
they're not spin waiting).
> But these inactive cpusets will overlap in unknown (to them at
> the time, in that piece of code) ways with other cpusets holding
> active jobs, and there is no chance, unless it is a matter of major
> performance impact, that they will be in any position to comment on
> the proper partitioning of the sched domains on all the CPUs under the
> control of their batch scheduler, much less comment on the partitioning
> of the rest of the system.
-
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]
