Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch

From: Max Krasnyanskiy
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 20:46:34 EST

Paul Jackson wrote:
Ingo wrote:
none of this is upstream yet (nor is any of this even near to being ready for upstream), so there's nothing to revert.

I thought one of the earlier patches (Max's, perhaps) that we considered
in this discussion back in Feb or March -did- end up close to traveling
upstream, via the sched-devel tree going into linux-next, or some such.

However I can't claim to understand what (almost) went down there as
well as Andrew or Stephen hopefully do.

Paul/Peter/Max, what's the current agreed-upon approach

Well ... we don't have an agreed on approach yet ;)

to merge these physical resource isolation features into cpusets
intelligently while still keeping the whole thing as usable and
practical to down-to-earth sysadmins as possible? That is the issue
that is blocking this whole topic from progressing.

Well, yeah, everyone wants "simple". But that tends to degrade into
each of us insisting that whatever we don't appreciate need for in the
other guys proposal be removed. That way lies not progress.

Yeah, unfortunately we did not make much progress. Partly because of disagreements and party because I was on a longish vacation and did not get a chance to push things forward. Now I'm back.

At this point I want to make a step back and redo some of the original patches without using cpusets. At least for now while we do not have clear agreement on how cpuset integration should look like it seems to make sense to simply extend existing interfaces. For the irqs specifically I'm just thinking of adding /proc/irq/default_smp_affinity. I'll send some patches later this week.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at