From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932401AbVHYALJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:11:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932417AbVHYALJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:11:09 -0400 Received: from smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.96]:8287 "HELO smtp206.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932403AbVHYALG (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:11:06 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XHQgZHkY4oZAIFh6dQ4G0o4W7BjxQJuXjT5uaTQNdB1Qw8kxIwb07Zv7CyB/I0mh7pCWobD1jn8H2veV2I8rEPKhRgfDeJata5uZrUuBNSRjMt2NPCCxfpPrPNAClpJkc7sYbJtwcdtxHOJ7yQjr9AsL3NNBo+3Itwf4CwOpCxg= ; Message-ID: <430D0A95.30208@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:02:29 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Debian/1.7.8-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: dino@in.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu, hawkes@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6] cpu_exclusive sched domains build fix References: <20050824111510.11478.49764.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20050824112640.GB5197@in.ibm.com> <20050824044648.66f7e25a.pj@sgi.com> <430C617E.8080002@yahoo.com.au> <20050824133107.2ca733c3.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20050824133107.2ca733c3.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jackson wrote: > So long as the cpuset code stops making any calls to partition_sched_domains() > whatsoever, then we should be back where we were in 2.6.12, so far as the > scheduler is concerned - right? > That's right - sorry I just meant disabling the dynamic sched domains behaviour of the cpu_exclusive cpusets. > I hope that the following (untested, unbuilt) patch, that I suggested > in my "Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:38:23 -0700" message best meets you > suggestion above ... and I quote: > I apologise, I missed that patch you sent. I think it looks OK, and that it looks like what I was thinking about. We need to revert to a stable behaviour, however we can't risk major surgery to get there. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com