Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:00:18 -0800 | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |