Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch (was: Fix cpusetsched_relax_domain_level control file)

[Paul Jackson]

pj wrote:
> What's the easiest way to get from where we are now, to a world
> without that patch?

Would it help, Andrew, if I proposed a patch that went into your latest
mmtom stack, right after the three patches:

  origin.patch
  linux-next.patch
  Paul Menage's latest "Fix cpuset sched_relax_domain_level control file"

that reverted the cpuset "system" patch (this being a patch that added
a per-cpuset file called "system", which could be used to do things
such as help manage the assignment of IRQs to CPUs.)

I suspect that some of Ingo, Max Krasnyanskiy, or Peter Zijlstra will
not be happy with my doing this, but I'm pretty sure that the "system"
patch needs more work before we have agreement on the API.  I really
don't want to add the API of that current patch "as is" to the kernel.

I've added several of the people who were part of the preceding threads
on this discussion to the CC list.

I'm cooking up such a patch now -- I've gotten to the point that it
applies and builds; now I am about to see how badly it breaks the
remaining 426 patches in the mmtom stack.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/