Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:12:39 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
Paul Jackson wrote: > Peter wrote: > >>Of course, this [kernel compile option] makes gradual movement >>from one model to the other difficult to say the least. > > > To say the least. > > It might be possible to continue to support current affinity calls > (setaffinity/mbind/mempolicy) even while removing the duplication of > affinity masks between tasks and cpusets. > > If each call to set a tasks affinity resulted in moving that task into > its very own cpuset (unless it was already the only user of its cpuset), > and if the calls to load and store task->{cpus,mems}_allowed in the > implementation of these affinity sys calls were changed to load and > store those affinity masks in the tasks cpuset instead. > > I'm just brainstorming here ... this scheme could easily have some > fatal flaw that I'm missing at the moment.
Provided overlapping sets are allowed it should be feasible. However, I'm not a big fan of overlapping sets as it would make using different CPU scheduling configurations in each set more difficult (maybe even inadvisable) but that's a different issue.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |