Nick, responding to pj, wrote: > > However a little bit of additional kernel cpuset code could hide > > this detail from user space, by recognizing when the user had > > asked to turn off load balancing on some larger cpuset, and by > > then calling partition_sched_domains() multiple times, once for > > each CPU in that cpuset. > > Yeah: do all that in cpusets. It's already information you would have > to derive in order to make it work properly anyway. If you are not > passing in the singleton domains ATM, then they will not get properly > detached and isolated.
ok > It's not a huge deal, but I'd like to keep partition_sched_domains. After > my patch, it's really simple. ok It's a deal. I've got a couple of brown paper bag bug fixes almost ready to send out, for the patch I sent Andrew a few days ago: cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag I'll send these in, and then get some sleep and code up these changes to the partition_sched_domains, along the lines you have recommended. Thanks, Nick and Ingo. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/