On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:36:39AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > I'm on the fence myself; the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that tying > > this particular behaviour to the load-balance knob seems off. > > The main reason for doing it this way is that I don't want to have > load-balanced partition with no cpu in it. How about we just don't allow > consume-all at all. Each partition must have at least 1 cpu. I suspect that might be sufficient. It certainly is for the use-cases I'm aware of. You always want a system/control set which runs the regular busy work of running a system. Then you have one (or more) partitions to run your 'important' work. > > I also think we should not mix the 'consume all' thing with the > > 'fully-partitioned' thing, as they are otherwise unrelated. > > The "consume all" and "fully-partitioned" look the same to me. Are you > talking about allocating all the CPUs in a partition to sub-partitions > so that there is no CPU left in the parent partition? Not sure what you're asking. "consume all" is allowing sub-partitions to allocate all CPUs of the parent, such that there are none left. "fully-partitioned" is N cpus but no load-balancing, also equivalent to N 1 CPU parititions. They are distinct things. Disabling load-balancing should not affect how many CPUs can be allocated to sub-partitions, the moment you hit 1 CPU the load balancing is effectively off already. Going down to 0 CPUs isn't a problem for the load-balancer, it wasn't doing anything anyway. So the question is if someone really needs the one partition without balancing over N separate paritions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
