Nick, responding to pj, wrote:
quoted text
> >     However a little bit of additional kernel cpuset code could hide
> >     this detail from user space, by recognizing when the user had
> >     asked to turn off load balancing on some larger cpuset, and by
> >     then calling partition_sched_domains() multiple times, once for
> >     each CPU in that cpuset.
> 
> Yeah: do all that in cpusets. It's already information you would have
> to derive in order to make it work properly anyway. If you are not
> passing in the singleton domains ATM, then they will not get properly
> detached and isolated.

ok

quoted text
> It's not a huge deal, but I'd like to keep partition_sched_domains. After
> my patch, it's really simple.

ok

It's a deal.

I've got a couple of brown paper bag bug fixes almost ready to send
out, for the patch I sent Andrew a few days ago:

  cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag

I'll send these in, and then get some sleep and code up these changes
to the partition_sched_domains, along the lines you have recommended.

Thanks, Nick and Ingo.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/