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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site