LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, srostedt@redhat.com, ghaskins@novell.com Subject: Re: Integrating cpusets and cpu isolation [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions] Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:53:15 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20080203015315.6053d3dd.pj@sgi.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <47A557E3.4080206@qualcomm.com> Max wrote: > Paul, I actually mentioned at the beginning of my email that I did read that thread > started by Peter. I did learn quite a bit from it :) Ah - sorry - I missed that part. However, I'm still getting the feeling that there were some key points in that thread that we have not managed to communicate successfully. > Sounds like at this point we're in agreement that sched_load_balance is not suitable > for what I'd like to achieve. I don't think we're in agreement; I think we're in confusion ;) Yes, sched_load_balance does not *directly* have anything to do with this. But indirectly it is a critical element in what I think you'd like to achieve. It affects how the cpuset code sets up sched_domains, and if I understand correctly, you require either (1) some sched_domains to only contain RT tasks, or (2) some CPUs to be in no sched_domain at all. Proper configuration of the cpuset hierarchy, including the setting of the per-cpuset sched_load_balance flag, can provide either of these sched_domain partitions, as desired. > But how about making cpusets aware of the cpu_isolated_map ? No. That's confusing cpusets and the scheduler again. The cpu_isolated_map is a file static variable known only within the kernel/sched.c file; this should not change. Presently, the boot parameter isolcpus= is just used to initialize what CPUs are isolated at boot, and then the sched_domain partitioning, as done in kernel/sched.c:partition_sched_domains() (the hook into the sched code that cpusets uses) determines which CPUs are isolated from that point forward. I doubt that this should change either. In that thread referenced above, did you see the part where RT is achieved not by isolating CPUs from any scheduler, but rather by polymorphically having several schedulers available to operate on each sched_domain, and having RT threads self-select the RT scheduler? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-03 7:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2008-01-28 4:09 [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions maxk 2008-01-28 4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Add config options for CPU isolation maxk 2008-01-28 4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Export CPU isolation bits maxk 2008-01-28 4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Do not route IRQs to the CPUs isolated at boot maxk 2008-01-28 4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Support for workqueue isolation maxk 2008-01-28 4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Isolated CPUs should be ignored by the "stop machine" maxk 2008-01-28 9:08 ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Peter Zijlstra 2008-01-28 14:59 ` Paul Jackson 2008-01-28 16:34 ` Steven Rostedt 2008-01-28 16:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2008-01-28 18:54 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-28 18:46 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-28 19:00 ` Steven Rostedt 2008-01-28 20:22 ` Peter Zijlstra 2008-01-28 21:42 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-02-05 0:32 ` CPU isolation and workqueues [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions] Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-28 18:37 ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-28 19:06 ` Paul Jackson 2008-01-28 21:47 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-31 19:06 ` Integrating cpusets and cpu isolation [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions] Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-02-02 6:16 ` Paul Jackson 2008-02-03 5:57 ` Max Krasnyansky 2008-02-03 7:53 ` Paul Jackson [this message] 2008-02-04 6:03 ` Max Krasnyansky 2008-02-04 10:54 ` Paul Jackson 2008-02-04 23:19 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-02-05 2:46 ` Paul Jackson 2008-02-05 4:08 ` Max Krasnyansky 2008-01-28 18:32 ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-28 19:10 ` Paul Jackson 2008-01-28 23:41 ` Daniel Walker 2008-01-29 0:12 ` Max Krasnyanskiy 2008-01-29 1:33 ` Daniel Walker 2008-02-04 6:53 ` Max Krasnyansky 2008-01-31 12:16 ` Mark Hounschell 2008-01-31 19:13 ` Max Krasnyanskiy
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=20080203015315.6053d3dd.pj@sgi.com \ --to=pj@sgi.com \ --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \ --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=maxk@qualcomm.com \ --cc=mingo@elte.hu \ --cc=srostedt@redhat.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: linkBe 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).