lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
    Hubertus writes:
    >
    > That's one of the sticking points.
    > That would require that TASKCLASSES and cpumemsets must go along the
    > same hierarchy. With CPUmemsets being the top part of the hierarchy.
    > In other words the task classes can not span different cpusets.

    Can task classes span an entire cpuset subtree? I can well imagine that
    an entire subtree of the cpuset tree should be managed by the same CKRM
    policies and shares.

    In particular, if we emulate the setaffinity/mbind/mempolicy calls by
    forking a child cpuset to represent the new restrictions on the task
    affected by those calls, then we'd for sure want to leave that task in
    the same CKRM policy realm as it was before.

    --
    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.025 / U:59.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site