lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [8]   [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
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.211 / U:2.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site