On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 14:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 11/11/2009 01:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 15:21 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > > >> When users use cpuset/cpu affinity, then they would like to controll cpu affinity. > >> Not CPU time. > > > > What are people using affinity for? The only use of affinity is to > > restrict or disable the load-balancer. Don't complain the load-balancer > > doesn't work when you're taking active steps to hinder its work. > > I have one active user of scheduler groups (using CKRM though, but they > want to switch to a new kernel using CFS and sched groups in the near > future). > > They want to run their app on one cpu by itself with as little > interference as possible. Pure cpu processing, not even any I/O except > via shared memory buffers. Everything else gets done on the other cpu, > but they want to control how much of the other cpu is assigned to packet > processing, how much to system maintenance, normal user shell commands, etc. > > This would seem like a case where some sort of cpuset/affinity and > sched groups would be expected to play nice together. Agreed, and I'd like the load-balance partition feature of cpusets and the cpu task-groups to work well together, except that the current interface doesn't allow that nicely. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers