lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
From
Date
On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 17:05, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Matthew writes:
> > > CKRM aspires to be both a general purpose resource management framework
> > > and the embodiment of fair share scheduling.
> >
> > I think your missing something here. CKRM, as I understand it, aspires
> > to be a general purpose resource management framework. To that point I
> > will accede. But the second part, about CKRM being the embodiment of
> > fair share scheduling, is secondary.
>
> Ok - you may well be right that CKRM does not aspire to be the embodiment
> of fair share scheduling. But doesn't it embody a fair share sheduler
> (and no other such policy) as a matter of current implementation fact?

Yes. That is true, but it is by no means meant to be the end-all,
be-all of CKRM. It is my understanding that the fair share scheduler is
a proof-of-concept and an example of how to write a 'controller' for
others, but not the full extent of CKRM's power.

-Matt

-
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 14:06    [W:0.169 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site