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

[Matthew Dobson]

Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:59:49PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with Paul 
> > Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince either 
> > him or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM is as easy as I once believed.  
> > I'm still convinced the CPU side is doable, but I haven't managed as much 
> > success with the memory binding side of CPUSETs.  In light of this, I'd 
> > like to remove my previous objections to CPUSETs moving forward.  If others 
> > still have things they want discussed before CPUSETs moves into mainline, 
> > that's fine, but it seems to me that CPUSETs offer legitimate functionality 
> > and that the code has certainly "done its time" in -mm to convince me it's 
> > stable and usable.
> >
> > -Matt
>
>
> What about your proposed sched domain changes?
> Cant sched domains be used handle the CPU groupings and the
> existing code in cpusets that handle memory continue as is?
> Weren't sched somains supposed to give the scheduler better knowledge
> of the CPU groupings afterall ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dinakar

Yes.  I still think that there is room for merging on the CPU scheduling side 
between CPUSETs and sched domains, and I will continue to work on that aspect. 
 The reason Paul and I decided that they weren't totally reconcilable is 
because of the memory binding side of the CPUSETs code.

-Matt
-
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/