Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement | Date | Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:16:28 -0700 | From | Rick Lindsley <> |
| |
It's not so much whether they NEED their own scheduler, etc. as whether it should be possible for them to have their own scheduler, etc. With a configurable scheduler (such as ZAPHOD) this could just be a matter of having separate configuration variables for each cpuset (e.g. if a cpuset has been created to contain as bunch of servers there's no need to try and provide good interactive response for its tasks (as none of them will be interactive) so the interactive response mechanism can be turned off in that cpuset leading to better server response and throughput).
Providing configurable schedulers is a feature/bug/argument completely separate from cpusets. Let's stay focused on that for now.
Two concrete examples for cpusets stick in my mind:
* the department that has been given 16 cpus of a 128 cpu machine, is free to do what they want with them, and doesn't much care specifically how they're laid out. Think general timeshare.
* the department that has been given 16 cpus of a 128 cpu machine to run a finely tuned application which expects and needs everybody to stay off those cpus. Think compute-intensive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CKRM can handle the first, but cannot currently handle the second. And the mechanism(s) for creating either situation are suboptimal at best and non-existent at worst.
Rick - 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/
| |