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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/