From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754573AbXJCHVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:21:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752007AbXJCHVF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:21:05 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:44940 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752065AbXJCHVD (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:21:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:20:51 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Jackson Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dino@in.ibm.com, cpw@sgi.com Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix sched-domains partitioning by cpusets Message-ID: <20071003072051.GD2619@elte.hu> References: <20070930104403.24828.48263.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <200709301335.00441.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20071001111528.5487b4f4.pj@sgi.com> <200710022335.05357.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20071003062240.GA19027@elte.hu> <20071002235615.6e8cd007.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002235615.6e8cd007.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul Jackson wrote: > Batch schedulers need to be able to specify where they need load > balancing and where they don't, and they can't use the 'cpu_exclusive' > flag. The defining characteristic of 'cpu_exclusive' is no overlap of > CPUs with sibling cpusets. That is incompatible with their needs. > > Therefore, they need a different flag. > > I must NAQ this patch, and I'm surprised to see Nick propose it again, > as I thought he had already agreed that it didn't suffice. ok. Then lets go back to the original plan: your two patches and the new flag. Nick? Ingo