Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Paul Jackson wrote:
>>If you always have other domains overlapping them (regardless
>>that it is a parent), then what actual use does cpu_exclusive
>>flag have?
> 
> 
> Good question.  To be a tad too honest, I don't consider it to be
> all that essential.
> 
> It does turn out to be a bit useful, in that you can be confident that
> if you are administering the batch scheduler and it has a cpu_exclusive
> cpuset covering a big chunk of your system, then no other cpuset other
> than the top cpuset right above, which you administer pretty tightly,
> could have anything overlapping it.  You don't have to actually look
> at the cpumasks in all the parallel cpusets and cross check each one
> against the batch schedulers set of cpus for overlap.
> 
> But as you can see by grep'ing in kernel/cpuset.c, it is only used
> to generate a couple of error returns, for things that you can do
> just fine by turning off the cpu_exclusive flag.

Well, it was supposed to be used for sched-domains partitioning, and
its uselessness for anything else I guess is what threw me.

But even the way cpu_exclusive semantics are defined makes it not
quite compatible with partitioning anyway, unfortunately.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com