* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Max Krasnyansky wrote: > > > > Linus, please pull CPU isolation extensions from > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maxk/cpuisol-2.6.git > > for-linus > > Have these been in -mm and widely discussed etc? I'd like to start > more carefully, and (a) have that controversial last patch not merged > initially and (b) make sure everybody is on the same page wrt this > all..
no, they have not been under nearly enough testing and review - these patches surfaced on lkml for the first time one week ago (!). I find the pull request totally premature, this stuff has not been discussed and agreed on _at all_. None of the people who maintain and have interest in this code and participated in the (short) one-week discussion were Cc:-ed to the pull request. I think these patches also need a buy-in from Peter Zijlstra and Paul Jackson (or really good reasoning while any objections from them should be overriden) - all of whom deal with the code affected by these changes on a daily basis and have an interest in CPU isolation features. Generally i think that cpusets is actually the feature and API that should be used (and extended) for CPU isolation - and we already extended it recently in the direction of CPU isolation. Most enterprise distros have cpusets enabled so it's in use. Also, cpusets has the appeal of being commonly used in the "big honking boxes" arena, so reusing the same concept for RT and virtualization stuff would be the natural approach. It already ties in to the scheduler domains code dynamically and is flexible and scalable. I resisted ad-hoc CPU isolation patches in -rt for that reason. Also, i'd not mind some test-coverage in sched.git as well. Ingo -- 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/