Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC PATCH] scheduler: Dynamic sched_domains | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Date | Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:54:52 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 03:40, Nick Piggin wrote: > And so you want to make a partition with CPUs {0,1,2,4,5}, and {3,6,7} > for some crazy reason, the new domains would look like this: > > 0 1 2 4 5 3 6 7 > --- - --- - --- <- 0 > | | | | | > ----- - - - <- 1 > | | | | > ------- ----- <- 2 (global, partitioned) > > Agreed? You don't need to get fancier than that, do you? > > Then how to input the partitions... you could have a sysfs entry that > takes the complete partition info in the form: > > 0,1,2,3 4,5,6 7,8 ... > > Pretty dumb and simple.
How do we describe the levels other than the first? We'd either need to: 1) come up with a language to describe the full tree. For your example I quoted above: echo "0,1,2,4,5 3,6 7,8;0,1,2 4,5 3 6,7;0,1 2 4,5 3 6,7" > partitions
2) have multiple files: echo "0,1,2,4,5 3,6,7" > level2 echo "0,1,2 4,5 3 6,7" > level1 echo "0,1 2 4,5 3 6,7" > level0
3) Or do it hierarchically as Paul implemented in cpusets, and as I described in an earlier mail: mkdir level2 echo "0,1,2,4,5 3,6,7" > level2/partitions mkdir level1 echo "0,1,2 4,5 3 6,7" > level1/partitions mkdir level0 echo "0,1 2 4,5 3 6,7" > level0/partitions
I personally like the hierarchical idea. Machine topologies tend to look tree-like, and every useful sched_domain layout I've ever seen has been tree-like. I think our interface should match that.
-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/
| |