Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:19:59 -0800 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation |
| |
Ingo wrote: > Could you perhaps outline two actual use-cases > that would need two cpusets with different policies, > on the same box?
We normally run with different policies, in the same box, on different cpusets at the same time. But this might be because some cpusets -need- the memory spreading, and the others that don't are left to the default policy.
In my immediate experience, I can only outline a hypothetical case, not an actual case, where the default node-local policy would be sorely needed, as opposed to just preferred:
If a job were running several threads, each of which did some file i/o in roughly equal amounts, for processing (reading and writing) in that thread, it could need the performance that depended on these pages being placed node local.
In cpusets running classic Unix loads, such as the daemon processes or the login sessions, the default node-local would certainly be preferred, as that policy is well tuned for that sort of load.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |