Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement

[Paul Jackson]

Peter writes:
>
> I say this because, 
> strictly speaking and as you imply, the current affinity mechanism is 
> sufficient to provide that isolation BUT it would be a huge pain to 
> implement.

The affects on any given task - where it gets scheduled and where it
allocates memory - can be duplicated using the current affinity
mechanisms (setaffinity/mbind/mempolicy).

However the system wide naming of cpusets, the control of their access,
use and modification, the exclusive rights to a CPU or Memory and the
robust linkage of tasks to these named cpusets are, in my view, just the
sort of system wide resource synchronization that kernels are born to
do, and these capabilities are not provided by the per-task existing
affinity mechanisms.

However, my point doesn't matter much.  Whether its a huge pain, or an
infinite pain, so long as we agree it's more painful than we can
tolerate, that's enough agreement to continue this discussion along
other more fruitful lines.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/