Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:12:06 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
> That makes no sense to me whatsoever, I'm afraid. Why if they were allowed > "to steal a few cycles" are they so fervently banned from being in there?
One substantial advantage of cpusets (as in the kernel patch in *-mm's tree), over variations that "just poke the affinity masks from user space" is the task->cpuset pointer. This tracks to what cpuset a task is attached. The fork and exit code duplicates and nukes this pointer, managing the cpuset reference counter.
It matters to batch schedulers and the like which cpuset a task is in, and which tasks are in a cpuset, when it comes time to do things like suspend or migrate the tasks currently in a cpuset.
Just because it's ok to share a little compute time in a cpuset doesn't mean you don't care to know who is in it.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - 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/
| |