On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:17, Paul Jackson wrote:
quoted text
> 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).


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