Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:39:24 +0200 (CEST) | From | Simon Derr <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 1/3] CPUMETER: add cpumeter framework to the CPUSETS |
| |
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, KUROSAWA Takahiro wrote:
> > Oh I think not. My primary motivation in pushing on this point > > of the design was to allow CPUSET 2a and 2b to have a smaller > > cpumask than CPUSET 1a. This is used for example to allow a job > > that is running in 1a to setup two child cpusets, 2a and 2b, > > to run two subtasks that are constrained to smaller portions of > > the CPUs allowed to the job in 1a. > > Maybe I still misunderstand your idea. > The guarantee assigned to CPUSET 1a might not be satisfied if > tasks are attached to CPUSET 2a only and no tasks are attached to > CPUSET 1a nor CPUSET 2b. Does your idea leave as it is because > the user sets up CPUSETs like that?
Hi Takahiro-san
It seems to me that this "guarantee" can only be guaranteed if the owner of cpuset 1a: -runs enough tasks to use all the cpus of cpuset 1a -does not tamper with the scheduler decisions by creating other cpusets inside cpuset 1a, or by using sched_setaffinity().
Outside of this, he accepts to get less cpu than "guaranteed". Sounds acceptable to me.
Simon.
- 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/
| |