lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [5]   [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
    >  1) Are you going to prevent sched_setaffinity calls as well?

    Outside of the the exclusive domain they're bound into, yes.

    > What about the per-cpu kernel threads?

    Those are set up before the userspace domains, so will fall into
    whatever domain they're bound to.

    <cut lots of other stuff ...>

    I think we're now getting down into really obscure requirements for
    particular types of wierd MP jobs. Whether Linux wants to support that
    or not is open to debate, but personally, given the complexity involved,
    I'd be against it.

    I agree with the basic partitioning stuff - and see a need for that. The
    non-exclusive stuff I think is fairly obscure, and unnecessary complexity
    at this point, as 90% of it is covered by CKRM. It's Andrew and Linus's
    decision, but that's my input.

    We'll never be able to provide every single feature everyone wants without
    overloading the kernel with reams of complexity. It's also an evolutionary
    process of putting in the most important stuff first, and seeing how it
    goes. I see that as the exclusive domain stuff (when we find a better
    implementation than cpus_allowed) + the CKRM scheduling resource control.
    I know you have other opinions.

    M.

    -
    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:5.907 / U:0.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site