lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [3]   [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
Erich Focht <efocht@hpce.nec.com> wrote:
>
> Can CKRM (as it is now) fulfil the requirements?
>
> I don't think so. CKRM gives me to some extent the confidence that I
> will really use the part of the machine for which I paid, say 50%. But
> it doesn't care about the structure of the machine.

Right. That's a restriction of the currently-implemented CKRM controllers.

> ...
> Can CKRM be extended to do what cpusets do?
>
> Certainly. Probably easilly. But cpusets will have to be reinvented, I
> guess. Same hooks, same checks, different user interface...

Well if it is indeed the case that the CKRM *framework* is up to the task
of being used to deliver the cpuset functionality then that's the way we
should go, no? It's more work and requires coordination and will deliver
later, but the eventual implementation will be better.

But I'm still not 100% confident that the CKRM framework is suitable.
Mainly because the CKRM and cpuset teams don't seem to have looked at each
other's stuff enough yet.
-
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:0.190 / U:4.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site