Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:08:58 -0500 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities |
| |
Max wrote: > Please take a look at > [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: Improved irq affinity handling > I'm treating irqs just like tasks (at least I think I'm :).
Well, I see the one comment in your Patch 2/2 noting you're unsure of the locking in one place.
I don't see any further comments on or additional code involving locking.
I don't see where you respond to my discussion with Peter of March 6 and 7, where I expressed some doubts about Peters patch (which you built on in your patch 1/2 in this series).
I see only a little bit of additional comments in your patch 2/2 regarding handling of moving irqs to higher non-empty cpusets if a cpuset is emptied of its CPUs.
I don't see any explanation of what you mean by "desired semantics."
I don't see any response to the alternatives to Peter's earlier patch (your Patch 1/2 here) that Peter and I discussed in that discussion of March 6 and 7.
And, in particular, could you respond to the question in my last message:
> What semantics to you impose on irqs in overlapping cpusets, > which would seem to lead to conflicting directives as to > whether one set or another of irqs was to be applied to the > CPUs in the overlap?
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
| |