Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:26:31 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>>What about your proposed sched domain changes? >>>Cant sched domains be used handle the CPU groupings and the >>>existing code in cpusets that handle memory continue as is? >>>Weren't sched somains supposed to give the scheduler better knowledge >>>of the CPU groupings afterall ? >>> >> >>sched domains can provide non overlapping top level partitions. >>It would basically just stop the multiprocessor balancing from >>moving tasks between these partitions (they would be manually >>moved by setting explicit cpu affinities). >> >>I didn't really follow where that idea went, but I think at least >>a few people thought that sort of functionality wasn't nearly >>fancy enough! :) > > > Not fancy seems like a positive thing to me ;-) >
Yes :)
I was thinking the sched domains soft-partitioning could be a useful feature in its own right, considering the runtime impact would be exactly zero, and the setup code should already be mostly there.
If anyone was interested, I could try to cook up an implementation on the scheduler side. The biggest issues may be the userspace interface and a decent userspace management tool.
- 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/
| |