[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>There's no relation to PAGG but I think cpusets and CKRM should be
>>made to come together. One of CKRM's user interfaces is a filesystem
>>with the file-tree representing the class hierarchy. It's the same for
> OK, that makes sense ...
>>I'd vote for cpusets going in soon. CKRM could be extended by
>>a cpusets controller which should be pretty trivial when using the
>>infrastructure of this patch. It simply needs to create classes
>>(cpusets) and attach processes to them. The enforcement of resources
>>happens automatically. When CKRM is mature to enter the kernel, one
>>could drop /dev/cpusets in favor of the CKRM way of doing it.
> But I think that's dangerous. It's very hard to get rid of existing user
> interfaces ... I'd much rather we sorted out what we're doing BEFORE
> putting either in the kernel.
> M.

We, CKRM, can put this on our stack, once we have settled how we are
going to address the structural requirements that came out of the kernel

As indicated above, this would mean to create a resource controller
and assign mask to them, which is not what we have done so far, as
our current controllers are more share focused. This should be a good

While we are on the topic, do you envision these sets to be somewhat
hierarchical or simply a flat hierarchy ?

-- Hubertus Franke

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 14:05    [W:0.331 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site