From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758653AbYCDGeU (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 01:34:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753143AbYCDGeL (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 01:34:11 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:40397 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752913AbYCDGeK (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 01:34:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=v6EIBYiyhzNniW3rfYyEB/UcYkDgwQpQFkQQcJppZ5rWPwGouaFpSBZtFeZXoW+2e EizwoCiLEgSIkkKYb2Pmw== Message-ID: <6599ad830803032234v3bce2769l26379ea304fe885@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:34:02 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Paul Jackson" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, maxk@qualcomm.com, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com In-Reply-To: <20080304002651.95089ff1.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080227222103.673194000@chello.nl> <20080303113621.1dfdda87.pj@sgi.com> <1204567052.6241.4.camel@lappy> <20080303121033.c8c9651c.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830803031041r6c635141n6520a915f2e1d08@mail.gmail.com> <20080303125253.5d2d580c.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830803032126m39935eaeu1df67d6263e8e123@mail.gmail.com> <20080304001507.3ddc8f26.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830803032221j740c9657yec237ebbadbeaeaa@mail.gmail.com> <20080304002651.95089ff1.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Paul Jackson wrote: > Paul M wrote: > > Except that this isn't currently possible if you're also trying to do > > memory hardwalling on those cpusets, since then sibling cpusets can't > > share memory nodes. > > Yes, there would be interactions, on both the CPU and Memory side with > some second order mechanisms (hardwalls and sched domains.) > > Still, I ask, where's the beef -- the real users? > I'm one such user who's been forced to add the mem_hardwall flag to get around the fact that exclusive and hardwall are controlled by the same flag. I keep meaning to send it in as a patch but haven't yet got round to it. Also, if you're using fake numa for memory isolation (which we're experimenting with) then the correlation between cpu placement and memory placement is much much weaker, or non-existent. Paul