Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:57:34 -0800 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
| |
Mark Hounschell wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> My vision on the direction we should take wrt cpu isolation. >> >> Next on the list would be figuring out a nice solution to the workqueue >> flush issue. >> >> -- >> 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/ >> > > Is it now the intent, not only that I have to enable cpusets in the > kernel but I will also have to use them in userland to take advantage of > this. > > And hot-plug too?? > > Can I predict that in the future that userland sched_setaffinity will be > taken away also and be forced to use cpusets? > > And hot-plug too??
Mark, I bet you won't get any replies (besides mine). And yes this means that you will have to enable cpusets if Peter's patches go in (looks like they will). Hot-plug may not be needed unless I convince people to reuse the hot-plug instead of introducing new notifiers. I guess we can make some extensions to expose "system" bit just like I did with "isolated" bit via sysfs. In which case cpusets may not be needed. We'll see.
Max
| |