On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 17:41 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/19/2018 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Hello, Mike.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up
On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 17:41 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/19/2018 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Hello, Mike.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up
On 03/19/2018 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Mike.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
>>> please don't leave dynamic
On 03/19/2018 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Mike.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
>>> please don't leave dynamic
On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Mike.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
> > please don't leave dynamic partitioning standing at the dock when v2
> > sails.
>
>
On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 08:34 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Mike.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
> > please don't leave dynamic partitioning standing at the dock when v2
> > sails.
>
>
Hello, Mike.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
> please don't leave dynamic partitioning standing at the dock when v2
> sails.
So, this isn't about implementation details but about what the
Hello, Mike.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:49:01AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you. My input ends at
> please don't leave dynamic partitioning standing at the dock when v2
> sails.
So, this isn't about implementation details but about what the
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:47:28AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Some form of cpu_exclusive (preferably exactly that, but something else
> > could replace it) is needed to define sets that must not overlap any
> > other set at
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:47:28AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Some form of cpu_exclusive (preferably exactly that, but something else
> > could replace it) is needed to define sets that must not overlap any
> > other set at
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:47:28AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Some form of cpu_exclusive (preferably exactly that, but something else
> could replace it) is needed to define sets that must not overlap any
> other set at creation time or any time thereafter. A set with property
>
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:47:28AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Some form of cpu_exclusive (preferably exactly that, but something else
> could replace it) is needed to define sets that must not overlap any
> other set at creation time or any time thereafter. A set with property
>
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 10:20 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/10/2018 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > The equivalent of isolcpus=xxx is a cgroup setup like:
> >
> > root
> > / \
> > systemother
> >
> > Where other has the @xxx cpus and system the remainder and
> >
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 10:20 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/10/2018 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > The equivalent of isolcpus=xxx is a cgroup setup like:
> >
> > root
> > / \
> > systemother
> >
> > Where other has the @xxx cpus and system the remainder and
> >
On 03/10/2018 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 06:06:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
> That one I wouldn't be sad to see the back of.
>
>> sched_load_balance.
> This one, that's critical. And this is the perfect time
On 03/10/2018 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 06:06:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
> That one I wouldn't be sad to see the back of.
>
>> sched_load_balance.
> This one, that's critical. And this is the perfect time
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 06:06:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
That one I wouldn't be sad to see the back of.
> sched_load_balance.
This one, that's critical. And this is the perfect time to try and fix
the whole isolcpus issue.
The primary
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 06:06:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
That one I wouldn't be sad to see the back of.
> sched_load_balance.
This one, that's critical. And this is the perfect time to try and fix
the whole isolcpus issue.
The primary
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 18:06 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
> >> the system. The cpuset controller does look at
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 18:06 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
> >> the system. The cpuset controller does look at
On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
>> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
>> adjustment accordingly, but it has no
On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
>> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
>> adjustment accordingly, but it has no
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
> adjustment accordingly, but it has no dependence on exclusive cpu/mem
> features of cpuset.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
> adjustment accordingly, but it has no dependence on exclusive cpu/mem
> features of cpuset.
On 03/09/2018 02:40 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>> If v2 is to ever supersede v1, as is the normal way of things, core
>>> functionality really should be on the v2 boat when it sails. What you
>>> left standing on the dock is critical core cpuset functionality.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>> From your
On 03/09/2018 02:40 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>> If v2 is to ever supersede v1, as is the normal way of things, core
>>> functionality really should be on the v2 boat when it sails. What you
>>> left standing on the dock is critical core cpuset functionality.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>> From your
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 13:20 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 01:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Given the fact that
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 13:20 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 01:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Given the fact that
On 03/09/2018 01:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
time to
On 03/09/2018 01:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
time to
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> >> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 12:45 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> >> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy
On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
>> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
>> as it is clearly threaded.
>>
>> The cpuset
On 03/09/2018 11:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
>> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
>> as it is clearly threaded.
>>
>> The cpuset
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 17:34 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> > time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
> > as it is clearly threaded.
> >
>
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 17:34 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> > time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
> > as it is clearly threaded.
> >
>
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
> as it is clearly threaded.
>
> The cpuset controller had experienced feature creep since its
>
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 10:35 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
> time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
> as it is clearly threaded.
>
> The cpuset controller had experienced feature creep since its
>
Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
as it is clearly threaded.
The cpuset controller had experienced feature creep since its
introduction more than a decade ago. Besides the core cpus and mems
Given the fact that thread mode had been merged into 4.14, it is now
time to enable cpuset to be used in the default hierarchy (cgroup v2)
as it is clearly threaded.
The cpuset controller had experienced feature creep since its
introduction more than a decade ago. Besides the core cpus and mems
40 matches
Mail list logo
