Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Max Krasnyansky
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 1:17 pm

Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
Yes. I forgot to point out that if we do change cpusets to generate sched
domain per cpu we want to make sure that balancer is still a noop just like it
is today with the null sched domain.

I think 'root' in this case is a bit of a misnomer. What I meant is that each
non-balanced cpu would be in a separate sched domain.

Max
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_dom ..., Dimitri Sivanich, (Wed Nov 19, 12:55 pm)
Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_dom ..., Max Krasnyansky, (Wed Nov 19, 1:17 pm)