On Tue, 8 May 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > But this would still mean that the vmstat update thread would run on an > > arbitrary cpu. If I have a sacrificial lamb processor for OS processing > > then I would expect the vmstat update thread to stick to that processor > > and avoid to run on the other processor that I would like to be as free > > from OS noise as possible. > > > > OK, what about - > > - We pick a scapegoat cpu (the first to come up gets the job). > - We add a knob to let user designate another cpu for the job. > - If scapegoat cpus goes offline, the cpu processing the off lining is > the new scapegoat. > > Does this makes better sense? Sounds good. The first that comes up. If the cpu is isolated then the first non isolated cpu is picked. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>