On 07/05/2012 05:09 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > In the very first review iteration of AutoNUMA, Peter argued that the > scheduler people want to use this flag in other places where they rely > on this thing meaning a single cpu, not a group of them (check out the > cpumask test in debug_smp_processor_id() in lib/smp_processor_id.c). > > He also argued that preventing root from rebinding the numa daemons is > not critical to this feature at all. And I have to agree. Despite not being a scheduler expert, I'll have to side with that as well. The thing I have in mind is: We have people whose usecase depend on completely isolating cpus, with nothing but a specialized task running on it. For those people, even the hard binding between cpu0 and the timer interrupt is a big problem. If you force a per-node binding of a kthread, you are basically saying that those people are unable to isolate a node. Or else, that they have to choose between that, and AutoNUMA. Both are suboptimal choices, to say the least. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>