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

[Nick Piggin]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > 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 ?
> >
> > sched domains can provide non overlapping top level partitions.
> > It would basically just stop the multiprocessor balancing from
> > moving tasks between these partitions (they would be manually
> > moved by setting explicit cpu affinities).
> >
> > I didn't really follow where that idea went, but I think at least
> > a few people thought that sort of functionality wasn't nearly
> > fancy enough! :)
>
>
> Not fancy seems like a positive thing to me ;-)

Yes :)

I was thinking the sched domains soft-partitioning could be a
useful feature in its own right, considering the runtime impact
would be exactly zero, and the setup code should already be mostly
there.

If anyone was interested, I could try to cook up an implementation
on the scheduler side. The biggest issues may be the userspace
interface and a decent userspace management tool.

-
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/