From: Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, Simon.Derr@bull.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
akpm@osdl.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, colpatch@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Dynamic sched domains aka Isolated cpusets
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:07:44 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050420073744.GB3931@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050419082639.62d706ca.pj@sgi.com>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:26:39AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> * Your understanding of "cpu_exclusive" is not the same as mine.
Sorry for creating confusion by what I said earlier, I do understand
exactly what cpu_exclusive means. Its just that when I started
working on this (a long time ago) I had a different notion and that is
what I was referring to, I probably should never have brought that up
>
> > Since isolated cpusets are trying to partition the system, this
> > can be restricted to only the first level of cpusets.
>
> I do not think such a restriction is a good idea. For example, lets say
> our 8 CPU system has the following cpusets:
>
And my current implementation has no such restriction, I was only
suggesting that to simplify the code.
>
> > Also I think we can add further restrictions in terms not being able
> > to change (add/remove) cpus within a isolated cpuset.
>
> My approach agrees on this restriction. Earlier I wrote:
> > Also note that adding or removing a cpu from a cpuset that has
> > its domain_cpu_current flag set true must fail, and similarly
> > for domain_mem_current.
>
> This restriction is required in my approach because the CPUs in the
> domain_cpu_current cpusets (the isolated CPUs, in your terms) form a
> partition (disjoint cover) of the CPUs in the system, which property
> would be violated immediately if any CPU were added or removed from any
> cpuset defining the partition.
See my other note explaining how things work currently. I do feel that
this restriction is not good
-Dinakar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-20 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-07 0:51 [RFC PATCH] scheduler: Dynamic sched_domains Matthew Dobson
2004-10-07 2:13 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-07 17:01 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-10-08 5:55 ` [Lse-tech] " Takayoshi Kochi
2004-10-08 6:08 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-08 16:43 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-10-07 21:58 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-08 0:22 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-07 22:20 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-07 4:12 ` [ckrm-tech] " Marc E. Fiuczynski
2004-10-07 5:35 ` Paul Jackson
2004-10-07 22:06 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-07 9:32 ` Paul Jackson
2004-10-08 10:14 ` [Lse-tech] " Erich Focht
2004-10-08 10:40 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-08 15:50 ` [ckrm-tech] " Hubertus Franke
2004-10-08 22:48 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-08 18:54 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-08 21:56 ` Peter Williams
2004-10-08 22:52 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-08 23:13 ` Erich Focht
2004-10-08 23:50 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-10 12:25 ` Erich Focht
2004-10-08 22:51 ` Erich Focht
2004-10-09 1:05 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-10 12:45 ` Erich Focht
2004-10-12 22:45 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-10-08 18:45 ` Matthew Dobson
2005-04-18 20:26 ` [RFC PATCH] Dynamic sched domains aka Isolated cpusets Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-18 23:44 ` Nick Piggin
2005-04-19 8:00 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-19 5:54 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 6:19 ` Nick Piggin
2005-04-19 6:59 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 7:09 ` Nick Piggin
2005-04-19 7:25 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 7:28 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 7:19 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 7:57 ` Nick Piggin
2005-04-19 20:34 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-23 23:26 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-26 0:52 ` Matthew Dobson
2005-04-26 0:59 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 9:52 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-19 15:26 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-20 7:37 ` Dinakar Guniguntala [this message]
2005-04-19 20:42 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 8:12 ` Simon Derr
2005-04-19 16:19 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-19 9:34 ` [Lse-tech] " Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-19 17:23 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-20 7:16 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-20 19:09 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-21 16:27 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-22 21:26 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-23 7:24 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-23 22:30 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-25 11:53 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-25 14:38 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-21 17:31 ` [RFC PATCH] Dynamic sched domains aka Isolated cpusets (v0.2) Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-04-22 18:50 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-22 21:37 ` Paul Jackson
2005-04-23 3:11 ` Paul Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050420073744.GB3931@in.ibm.com \
--to=dino@in.ibm.com \
--cc=Simon.Derr@bull.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).