Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:13:07 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement |
| |
>> 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 ;-)
M.
- 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/
| |