Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain andno load balance

[Max Krasnyansky]

Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:49:36AM -0800, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> I think the idea is that we want to make balancer a noop on those processors.
> 
> Ultimately, making the balancer a noop on processors with load balancing turned off would be the best solution.
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.

>> We could change cpusets code to create a root sched domain for each cpu I
>> guess. But can we maybe scale cpupri some other way ?
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have a root domain attached that spans more of the the system than that cpu.
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
--
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/