On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 10:23 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 10:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> Maybe we can have a different root level flag, say,
> >> sched_partition_domain that is equivalent to !sched_load_bal
On 03/27/2018 10:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Maybe we can have a different root level flag, say,
>> sched_partition_domain that is equivalent to !sched_load_balnace.
>> However, I am still not sure if we should enforce that no
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Maybe we can have a different root level flag, say,
> sched_partition_domain that is equivalent to !sched_load_balnace.
> However, I am still not sure if we should enforce that no task should be
> in the root cgroup when the fla
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:28 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> The sched_load_balance flag isn't something that is passed to the
> scheduler. It only only affects the CPU topology of the system. So I
> suspect that a process in the root cgroup will be load balanced among
> the CPUs in the one of the ch
On 26/03/18 16:28, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/26/2018 08:47 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 23/03/18 14:44, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 03/23/2018 03:59 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>> OK, thanks for confirming. Can you tell again however why do you think
> >>> we need to remove sched_load_ba
On 03/26/2018 08:47 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 23/03/18 14:44, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/23/2018 03:59 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> OK, thanks for confirming. Can you tell again however why do you think
>>> we need to remove sched_load_balance from root level? Won't we end up
>>> having ta
On 23/03/18 14:44, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/23/2018 03:59 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > OK, thanks for confirming. Can you tell again however why do you think
> > we need to remove sched_load_balance from root level? Won't we end up
> > having tasks put on isolated sets?
>
> The root cgroup
On 03/23/2018 03:59 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 22/03/18 17:50, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/22/2018 04:41 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> On 21/03/18 12:21, Waiman Long wrote:
> [...]
>
+ cpuset.sched_load_balance
+ A read-write single value file which exists on non-root cgroups.
+ The d
On 22/03/18 17:50, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 04:41 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 21/03/18 12:21, Waiman Long wrote:
[...]
> >> + cpuset.sched_load_balance
> >> + A read-write single value file which exists on non-root cgroups.
> >> + The default is "1" (on), and the other possible valu
On 03/22/2018 04:41 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Waiman,
>
> On 21/03/18 12:21, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The sched_load_balance flag is needed to enable CPU isolation similar
>> to what can be done with the "isolcpus" kernel boot parameter.
>>
>> The sched_load_balance flag implies an implicit !cpu_excl
Hi Waiman,
On 21/03/18 12:21, Waiman Long wrote:
> The sched_load_balance flag is needed to enable CPU isolation similar
> to what can be done with the "isolcpus" kernel boot parameter.
>
> The sched_load_balance flag implies an implicit !cpu_exclusive as
> it doesn't make sense to have an isolat
The sched_load_balance flag is needed to enable CPU isolation similar
to what can be done with the "isolcpus" kernel boot parameter.
The sched_load_balance flag implies an implicit !cpu_exclusive as
it doesn't make sense to have an isolated CPU being load-balanced in
another cpuset.
For v2, this
12 matches
Mail list logo
