Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Peter, in general the discussion would be much more fruitful if you explained your reasoning more verbosely. I can only guess what your rationales are from your half sentence pronouncements. > and has no regards for any realtime processes. You're saying this should not be done if any realtime processes are currently bound to a to be temporarily removed CPU? That sounds reasonable and I'm sure could be implemented with the original patch. > And I must take back my > earlier suggestion, hotplug is a bad solution too. > > There's just too much user policy (cpuset configuration) to upset. Could you explain that please? How does changing the top level cpuset affect other cpu sets? > The IBM folks are working on a scheduler based solution, please talk to > them. I don't claim to fully understand the scheduler, but naively since cpusets can already do this adding another mechanism for it too that needs to be checked in fast paths would seem somewhat redundant? -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
