Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities

[Max Krasnyansky]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max K wrote:
>> this could also provide the desired semantics.
> 
> Could you spell out what you mean by "the desired semantics" ?
> 
> I don't see any Documentation or much comments, which would
> help understand this.  It helps to describe both what has
> changed, and, from the top, the why, what and how of what
> you're doing, in part as Documentation or code comments,
> for the benefit of future readers.
> 
> Did you see my discussion of this with Peter on March 6 and 7
> in the lkml "[RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities" thread?
> This latest patch of yours seems, offhand, to predate that discussion.
Paul, can you please comment on 2/2 patch instead. 1/2 is just a resend of the
Peter's original patch that I was building on top. So yes it predates that
discussion. I used it as the baseline.

> I don't see any explanation of what locking is needed when.
There are more comments in 2/2. There is one spot in there where I'm not sure
about the locking (look for FIXME comment). Everything else seems to be
protected correctly by callback_lock. I may have missed things of course.

> What semantics to you impose on irqs in overlapping cpusets,
> which would seem to lead to conflicting directives as to
> whether one set or another of irqs was to be applied to the
> CPUs in the overlap?
Please take a look at
	[PATCH 2/2] cpusets: Improved irq affinity handling
I'm treating irqs just like tasks (at least I think I'm :).

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/