From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756900AbYEIKXW (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 06:23:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752865AbYEIKXO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 06:23:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55356 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752847AbYEIKXN (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 06:23:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:22:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Max Krasnyansky Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton , menage@google.com, seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, rostedt@goodmis.org, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: Reverting per-cpuset "system" (IRQ affinity) patch Message-ID: <20080509102237.GE19617@elte.hu> References: <48210101.1070205@google.com> <20080506183138.546f42d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080506204054.564fff32.pj@sgi.com> <20080506223859.0b4fa876.pj@sgi.com> <20080506204444.f4c38d0a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080506225228.d42630cf.pj@sgi.com> <1210142681.13978.166.camel@twins> <48233EEB.1010807@qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48233EEB.1010807@qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Max Krasnyansky wrote: > > No problem, I've been meaning to redo this whole series but somehow > > stuff got in the way and I never got around to it :-/ > > I'm actually totally surprised that it got in. Ingo applied Peter's > initial patch to his sched-devel tree but then ignored follow up > patches with fixes and stuff from me (I'm assuming that was because we > started discussion alternative options). yes, there's been a lot of back and forth. Paul/Peter/Max, what's the current agreed-upon approach to merge these physical resource isolation features into cpusets intelligently while still keeping the whole thing as usable and practical to down-to-earth sysadmins as possible? That is the issue that is blocking this whole topic from progressing. > Anyway, my vote goes for reverting these series. none of this is upstream yet (nor is any of this even near to being ready for upstream), so there's nothing to revert. Ingo