[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
> That makes no sense to me whatsoever, I'm afraid. Why if they were allowed
> "to steal a few cycles" are they so fervently banned from being in there?

One substantial advantage of cpusets (as in the kernel patch in *-mm's
tree), over variations that "just poke the affinity masks from user
space" is the task->cpuset pointer. This tracks to what cpuset a task
is attached. The fork and exit code duplicates and nukes this pointer,
managing the cpuset reference counter.

It matters to batch schedulers and the like which cpuset a task is in,
and which tasks are in a cpuset, when it comes time to do things like
suspend or migrate the tasks currently in a cpuset.

Just because it's ok to share a little compute time in a cpuset doesn't
mean you don't care to know who is in it.

I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <> 1.650.933.1373
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.189 / U:17.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site