Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:40:59 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > > Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation.
Despite what Paul says, his customers *do not* "require" physical isolation [*]. That's like an accountant requiring that his spreadsheet be written in Pascal. He needs slapping.
Isolation is merely the means by which cpusets implements some higher-level customer requirement.
I want to see a clearer description of what that higher-level requirement is.
Then I'd like to see some thought put into whether CKRM (with probably a new controller) can provide a good-enough implementation of that requirement.
Coming at this from the other direction: CKRM is being positioned as a general purpose resource management framework, yes? Isolation is a simple form of resource management. If the CKRM framework simply cannot provide this form of isolation then it just failed its first test, did it not?
[*] Except for the case where there is graphics (or other) hardware close to a particular node. In that case it is obvious that CPU-group pinning is the only way in which to satisfy the top-level requirement of "make access to the graphics hardware be efficient". - 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/
| |