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

[Martin J. Bligh]

> 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.

No, I was talking about the non-exclusive part of cpusets that wouldn't
fit inside another mechanism. The basic partitioning I have no problem
with, and that seemed to cover most of the requirements, AFAICS.

As I've said before, the exclusive stuff makes sense, and is useful to
a wider audience, I think. Having non-exclusive stuff whilst still 
requiring physical partioning is what I think is obscure, won't work
well (cpus_allowed is problematic) and could be done in userspace anyway.

M.
-
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/