On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > OK, will do. Thanks, Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Israel Cell: +972-52-8260388 US Cell: +1-973-8260388 http://benyossef.com "If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a situation where the homework eats your dog?" -- Jean-Baptiste Queru -- 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