Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Date | Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:18:29 -0700 |
| |
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/
| |