Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection

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

On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
>
> Which patch do you refer to:
>  1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
> 	cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
>  2) my patch of a few days ago to add a 'sched_load_balance' flag:
> 	cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag

The one quoted, of course.


> I can't push one without the other, because some real time folks are
> depending on the sched domain hooks that (1) would remove, so need some
> alternative, such as in (2).  Even though (1) is rather broken, as you
> note, it still provides a way that the real time folks can disable load
> balancing at runtime on selected CPUs, so is essential to their work.

OK.


> I can't delay any more resolving this, because the cgroup (aka
> container) code is tangled up with (1), and Andrew needs a clear path
> to send cgroups to Linus real soon now.

If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
or fixed properly etc.


> In my last message to you, a couple of days ago, I asked what I thought
> were a couple of key and simple questions -- can sched domains overlap,
> and what does it mean for user space if they overlap?  A further
> question comes to mind now -- if sched domains can overlap, does this
> provide some capability to user space that is important to provide?
>
> Could you take a minute, Nick, to consider these questions?  Thanks.

Yeah, it arrived after I had a 24 hour flight. I just see it now.