[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
    On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 16:44, Hubertus Franke wrote:
    > along cpuset boundaries. If taskclasses are allowed to span disjoint
    > cpumemsets, what is then the definition of setting shares ?

    I think the clearest interpretation is the share ratios are the same
    but the quantity of "real" resources and the sum of shares allocated is
    different depending on cpuset.

    For example, suppose we have taskclass/A that spans cpusets Foo and Bar
    -- processes foo and bar are members of taskclass/A but in cpusets Foo
    and Bar respectively. Both get up to 50% share of cpu time in their
    respective cpusets because they are in taskclass/A. Further suppose that
    cpuset Foo has 1 CPU and cpuset Bar has 2 CPUs.

    This means process foo could consume up to half a CPU while process bar
    could consume up to a whole CPU. In order to enforce cpuset
    partitioning, each class would then have to track its share usage on a
    per-cpuset basis. [Otherwise share allocation in one partition could
    prevent share allocation in another partition. Using the example above,
    suppose process foo is using 45% of CPU in cpuset Foo. If the total
    share consumption is calculated across cpusets process bar would only be
    able to consume up to 5% of CPU in cpuset Bar.]

    -Matt Helsley

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.021 / U:3.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site