From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765311AbYB1UOX (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:14:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763448AbYB1UNn (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:13:43 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:57011 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764028AbYB1UNm (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:13:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:39 -0600 From: Paul Jackson To: Max Krasnyansky Cc: mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation Message-Id: <20080228141339.b83ae00f.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <47C7155C.5060607@qualcomm.com> References: <20080227222103.673194000@chello.nl> <20080228075010.GA28781@elte.hu> <20080228020808.3fd22f77.pj@sgi.com> <20080228090847.GA1133@elte.hu> <20080228031710.3405e405.pj@sgi.com> <20080228104637.GA9129@elte.hu> <47C7155C.5060607@qualcomm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Max K wrote: > I like the concept of the "boot" set. But we still need a separate "system" > flag. Users should not have to move cpu back into the "boot" set to allow for > kernel (irqs, etc) activity on it. And it's just more explicit and clear that way. Good point -- a "boot" cpuset might be 4 CPUs out of 256 CPUs, just for running the classic Unix load (daemons, init, login, ...). But irq's might need to go to most CPUs, except for some (dare I use the word) isolated CPUs. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214