From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753811AbYCLTbH (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:31:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751798AbYCLTa4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:30:56 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:15325 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751685AbYCLTaz (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:30:55 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5250"; a="1065150" Message-ID: <47D82F6D.2000801@qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:30:53 -0700 From: Max Krasnyanskiy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: Paul Menage , mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: boot cgroup questions References: <47D73086.2030008@qualcomm.com> <6599ad830803111827n1cb8e2c7i47c2ef3f3bb58995@mail.gmail.com> <47D7411E.1000009@qualcomm.com> <6599ad830803111936jd940deam8584bc971c3b6f41@mail.gmail.com> <47D74595.4080100@qualcomm.com> <6599ad830803112009y18d9e43ft8e3fc4a551d891da@mail.gmail.com> <20080311235939.1ebee8e3.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830803121216y32b88d15r462aac437142d814@mail.gmail.com> <20080312142414.71c5731f.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080312142414.71c5731f.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jackson wrote: > Paul M wrote: >> Not cgroups, no. If you really wanted to extend cpusets specifically >> to allow irqs to be assigned to a cpuset to control which cpus they >> could execute on, then that might be a possibility. But I don't see >> how this would be useful for any other cgroup subsystem, so it doesn't >> belong in the generic framework. > > Ok - a sensible decision. > >> My feeling is that just using a simple bitmask assignment, unrelated >> to cpusets or cgroups, as Max suggested in his later email is the way >> to go. > > I'll have to have another go at reading his replies. I seem to have > more difficulty making sense of his posts ... not sure why. I'm sure it's because of gazillion typos in them :). Max