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/
