From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753828AbZHZVhv (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:37:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753553AbZHZVhu (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:37:50 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f206.google.com ([209.85.219.206]:50740 "EHLO mail-ew0-f206.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753400AbZHZVht (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:37:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=QYPiSi4orAnq5CGhI9sN9Lgw3643lZpCdBXu9UmTQ95e7uPK1O8/bx7Rj5G7wsk84Q Oj6AzDTSEV2nVP9eI0rluNVtg7UQKmObDBjjo9N7bIZ49IfY/QQphVPNNjtDHqY9HDYa bgWRYjGrL5ts5sSieEVT0fpEVKAGRLhEif7KU= Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER From: raz ben yehuda To: Chris Friesen Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, efault@gmx.de, riel@redhat.com, wiseman@macs.biu.ac.il, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4A95A5EE.90400@nortel.com> References: <1251282598.3514.20.camel@raz> <1251297910.1791.22.camel@maxim-laptop> <1251298443.4791.7.camel@raz> <1251300625.18584.18.camel@twins> <1251302598.18584.31.camel@twins> <20090826180407.GA13632@elte.hu> <20090826193252.GA14721@elte.hu> <20090826135041.e6169d18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A95A5EE.90400@nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:37:43 +0300 Message-Id: <1251322663.3882.48.camel@raz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 15:15 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 08/26/2009 02:50 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > What problem? > > > > All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU". That's not a problem > > statement - it's an implementation. > > > > What is the problem statement? > > I can only speak for myself... > > In our case the problem statement was that we had an inherently > single-threaded emulator app that we wanted to push as hard as > absolutely possible. > > We gave it as close to a whole cpu as we could using cpu and irq > affinity and we used message queues in shared memory to allow another > cpu to handle I/O. In our case we still had kernel threads running on > the app cpu, but if we'd had a straightforward way to avoid them we > would have used it. > > Chris Chris. I offer myself to help anyone wishes to apply OFFSCHED.