From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] timers: framework for migration between CPU Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:12:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20090226161255.GA15390@elte.hu> References: <20090220115745.43d202d6@infradead.org> <20090220215318.GA30665@elte.hu> <20090223075521.GA3725@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090223091158.GJ9582@elte.hu> <20090223094850.GA10226@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090223103814.GB8817@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20090223110725.GB17312@elte.hu> <20090226085831.GA28397@in.ibm.com> <20090226154526.GD352@elte.hu> <1235664169.4948.319.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235664169.4948.319.camel@laptop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Suresh Siddha , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org, arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Arjan van de Ven , Balbir Singh List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:45 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Yes - but that kind of policy should be coupled and expressed > > via cpusets. /proc based irq_affinity is just a limited, > > inflexible hack. All things IRQ partitioning should be handled > > via cpusets - perhaps via the 'system sets' idea from Peter? > > all we got out of that idea was the default_smp_affinity thing > in /proc/irq and a head-ache trying to work out silly details. > > Maybe we ought to try again,.. Your system sets patch was actually very sane, it just fell victim to a merge window i think. Mind re-sending it? Ingo