From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262506AbULCUYH (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:24:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262507AbULCUXw (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:23:52 -0500 Received: from www1.cdi.cz ([194.213.194.49]:46303 "EHLO www1.cdi.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262506AbULCUWQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:22:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:21:50 +0100 (CET) From: devik X-X-Sender: To: Dimitri Sivanich cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched isolcpus=1 related OOPS in 2.6.9 In-Reply-To: <20041203194713.GB16069@sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > After a quick look, this patch looks OK (although I haven't had a chance to > test it yet). I don't know what what was intended with a default cpu_power > of 0, but I don't believe that a value of SCHED_LOAD_SCALE should negatively > affect the isolated domains (versus any other value). Hello Dimitri, thanks for your check. As I understand the code (it took me 5 hours eh eh) only relative sizes of cpu_power within one domain matter. Thus in isolated domain one can use any nonzero value. Also SCHED_LOAD_SCALE is probably ok in principle because the value means "power of one typical CPU" AFAIK. I'm not sure who is official maintainer of the scheduler and whether he will see/integrate the patch ... devik