lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
Date
On Friday 08 October 2004 11:53, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Erich Focht wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 October 2004 20:13, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> >>It all just seems like a lot of complexity for a fairly obscure set of
> >>requirements for a very limited group of users, to be honest. Some bits
> >>(eg partitioning system resources hard in exclusive sets) would seem likely
> >>to be used by a much broader audience, and thus are rather more attractive.
> >
> > May I translate the first sentence to: the requirements and usage
> > models described by Paul (SGI), Simon (Bull) and myself (NEC) are
> > "fairly obscure" and the group of users addressed (those mainly
> > running high performance computing (AKA HPC) applications) is "very
> > limited"? If this is what you want to say then it's you whose view is
> > very limited. Maybe I'm wrong with what you really wanted to say but I
> > remember similar arguing from your side when discussing benchmark
> > results in the context of the node affine scheduler.
> >
> > This "very limited group of users" (small part of them listed in
> > www.top500.org) is who drives computer technology, processor design,
> > network interconnect technology forward since the 1950s.

> With all due respect, Linux gets driven as much from the bottom up
> as it does from the top down I think. Compared to desktop and small
> servers, yes you are obscure :)

I wasn't speaking of driving the Linux development, I was speaking of
driving the computer technology development. Just look at where the
DOD, DARPA, DOE money goes to. I actually aknowledged that HPC doesn't
really have a foot in the kernel developer community.

> My view on it is this, we can do *exclusive* dynamic partitioning
> today (we're very close to it - it wouldn't add complexity in the
> scheduler to support it).

Right, but that's an implementation question. The question
cpusets {AND, OR, XOR} CKRM ?
was basically a user space API question. I'm sure nobody will object
to changing the guts of cpusets to use sched_domains on exclusive sets
when this possibility will be there and ... simple.
> You can also hack up a fair bit of other functionality with cpu
> affinity masks.

I'm doing that for a subset of cpusets functionality in a module
(i.e. without touching the task structure and without hooking on
fork/exec) but that's ugly and on the long term insufficient.

Regards,
Erich

-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans