Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:16:09 -0400 | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
Paul Jackson wrote: > Hubertus wrote: > >>Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation. > > > This is slightly too terse for my dense brain to grok. > Could you elaborate just a little, Hubertus? Thanks. >
A minimal quote from your website :-)
"CpuMemSets provides a new Linux kernel facility that enables system services and applications to specify on which CPUs they may be scheduled, and from which nodes they may allocate memory."
Since I have addressed the cpu section it seems obvious that in order to ISOLATE different workloads, you associate them onto non-overlapping cpusets, thus technically they are physically isolated from each other on said chosen CPUs.
Given that cpuset hierarchies translate into cpu-affinity masks, this desired isolation can result in lost cycles globally.
I believe this to be orthogonal to share settings. To me both are extremely desirable features.
I also pointed out that if you separate mechanism from API, it is possible to move the CPU set API under the CKRM framework. I have not thought about the memory aspect.
-- Hubertus
- 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/
| |