* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:45 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Yes - but that kind of policy should be coupled and expressed > > via cpusets. /proc based irq_affinity is just a limited, > > inflexible hack. All things IRQ partitioning should be handled > > via cpusets - perhaps via the 'system sets' idea from Peter? > > all we got out of that idea was the default_smp_affinity thing > in /proc/irq and a head-ache trying to work out silly details. > > Maybe we ought to try again,.. Your system sets patch was actually very sane, it just fell victim to a merge window i think. Mind re-sending it? Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
