From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757970AbZBZQNd (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:13:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757323AbZBZQNV (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:13:21 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:34025 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757230AbZBZQNS (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:13:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:12:55 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Dipankar Sarma , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Balbir Singh , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, ego@in.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Suresh Siddha Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] timers: framework for migration between CPU Message-ID: <20090226161255.GA15390@elte.hu> References: <20090220115745.43d202d6@infradead.org> <20090220215318.GA30665@elte.hu> <20090223075521.GA3725@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090223091158.GJ9582@elte.hu> <20090223094850.GA10226@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090223103814.GB8817@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20090223110725.GB17312@elte.hu> <20090226085831.GA28397@in.ibm.com> <20090226154526.GD352@elte.hu> <1235664169.4948.319.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235664169.4948.319.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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 * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:45 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Yes - but that kind of policy should be coupled and expressed > > via cpusets. /proc based irq_affinity is just a limited, > > inflexible hack. All things IRQ partitioning should be handled > > via cpusets - perhaps via the 'system sets' idea from Peter? > > all we got out of that idea was the default_smp_affinity thing > in /proc/irq and a head-ache trying to work out silly details. > > Maybe we ought to try again,.. Your system sets patch was actually very sane, it just fell victim to a merge window i think. Mind re-sending it? Ingo