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

[Paul Jackson]

I agree with 97% of what you write, Chandra.


> one more level of indirection(instead of task->cpuset->cpus_allowed
> it will be task->taskclass->res[CPUSET]->cpus_allowed).

No -- two more levels of indirection (task->cpus_allowed becomes
task->taskclass->res[CPUSET]->cpus_allowed).


> But, for your purposes or our discussions one would need only 3 modules
> of the above (core, rcfs and taskclass). 

Ok.  That was not obvious to me until now.  If there is a section in
your documentation that explains this, and addresses the needs and
motivations of someone trying to reuse portions of CKRM in such a
manner, I missed it.  Whatever ...

In any case, on the issue that matters to me right now, we agree:

> It won't be a happy, productive marriage.

Good.  Thanks.  Good luck to you.

> PS to everyone else: Wow, you have lot of patience :)

For sure.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
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/