Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu andmemory placement

[Andrew Morton]

Hubertus Franke <frankeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/