Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks

• Next message: Larry McVoy: "Re: [Lse-tech] NUMA scheduling"
• Previous message: christophe barbé : "suspend/resume and 3c59x"
• Next in thread: Paul Jackson: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Paul Jackson wrote:

> I see three levels of synchonization possible here:
>
> 1) As Erich did, use IPI to get immediate application
>
> 2) Wakeup the target task, so that it will "soon" see the
> cpus_allowed change, but don't bother with the IPI, or
>
> 3) Make no effort to expedite notifcation, and let the
> target notice its changed cpus_allowed when (and if)
> it ever happens to be scheduled active again.

(3) looks good, if the process isn't running it makes little difference on
which CPU it doesn't run. Would probably be enough to ensure that if it is
scheduled active the change is noted at that time. "Eventually" is a good
time to do this, when going through schedule code anyway.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Larry McVoy: "Re: [Lse-tech] NUMA scheduling"
• Previous message: christophe barbé : "suspend/resume and 3c59x"
• Next in thread: Paul Jackson: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:00:17 EST