Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions

[Max Krasnyanskiy]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
> > So far it seems that extending cpu_isolated_map
> > is more natural way of propagating this notion to the rest of the kernel.
> > Since it's very similar to the cpu_online_map concept and it's easy to integrated
> > with the code that already uses it. 
>
> If it were just realtime support, then I suspect I'd agree that
> extending cpu_isolated_map makes more sense.
>
> But some people use realtime on systems that are also heavily
> managed using cpusets.  The two have to work together.  I have
> customers with systems running realtime on a few CPUs, at the
> same time that they have a large batch scheduler (which is layered
> on top of cpusets) managing jobs on a few hundred other CPUs.
> Hence with the cpuset 'sched_load_balance' flag I think I've already
> done what I think is one part of what your patches achieve by extending
> the cpu_isolated_map.
>
> This is a common situation with "resource management" mechanisms such
> as cpusets (and more recently cgroups and the subsystem modules it
> supports.)  They cut across existing core kernel code that manages such
> key resources as CPUs and memory.  As best we can, they have to work
> with each other.

Thanks for the info Paul. I'll definitely look into using this flag instead 
and reply with pros and cons (if any).

Max


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/