On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 13:12 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On 9/9/05, KUROSAWA Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:02:32 -0700
> > Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of my passions is to avoid special cases across API boundaries.
> > >
> > > I am proposing that
Takahashi-san wrote:
> What do you think if you make cpusets for sched domain be able to
> have their siblings, which have the same attribute and share
> their resources between them.
I do not understand this question. I guess "cpusets for sched
domains" means "cpusets whose 'cpu_exclusive' attri
Hi,
> magnus wrote:
> > Maybe it is possible to have an hierarchical model and keep the
> > framework simple and easy to understand while providing guarantees,
>
> Dinakar's patches to use cpu_exclusive cpusets to define dynamic
> sched domains accomplish something like this.
>
> What scheduler
Magnus wrote:
> Non-overlapping subsets of cpu or memory nodes basically mean that
> children of a cpuset only clear bits in the bitmap, never sets them.
X is a subset of Y if every element of X is also in Y.
My phrase "a subset of the CPUs" really just meant "some set of CPUs"
on the system. A
On 9/9/05, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> magnus wrote:
> > Maybe it is possible to have an hierarchical model and keep the
> > framework simple and easy to understand while providing guarantees,
>
> Dinakar's patches to use cpu_exclusive cpusets to define dynamic
> sched domains accomp
magnus wrote:
> Maybe it is possible to have an hierarchical model and keep the
> framework simple and easy to understand while providing guarantees,
Dinakar's patches to use cpu_exclusive cpusets to define dynamic
sched domains accomplish something like this.
What scheduler domains and resource
On 9/9/05, KUROSAWA Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:02:32 -0700
> Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of my passions is to avoid special cases across API boundaries.
> >
> > I am proposing that you don't do subcpusets like this.
> >
> > Consider the following
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:02:32 -0700
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These subcpusets, if I understand correctly, are a bit different
> from ordinary cpusets. For instance, it seems one cannot make child
> cpusets of them, and one cannot change most of their properties,
> such as cpus, mem
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 18:44 +0530, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
> Interesting implementation of resource controls. Cross posting this
I second this :)
Browsed a little through the docs/patches... seems to fit very well into
a resource management solution (hint CKRM :) than CPUSET (resource
isolati
Dinakar wrote:
> Cross posting this to ckrm-tech as well.
Good idea - thanks.
Hopefully Takahiro-san and the CKRM folks can reach an understanding
on how their two proposals relate.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Dipankar wrote:
> If what subcpusets is doing is slicing cpusets resources, then wouldn't
> it be more intusive to call them slice0, slice1 etc. under the
> respective cpuset ?
If we continue with Takahiro-san's design, then I agree that the name
'subcpusets' doesn't have quite the right connotat
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:44:27PM +0530, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
>
>
> > On the other hand, Dinakar had more work to do than you might, because
> > he needed a complete covering (so had to round up cpus in non exclusive
> > cpusets to form more covering elements). From what I can tell, you
>
Interesting implementation of resource controls. Cross posting this
to ckrm-tech as well. I am sure CKRM folks have something to say...
Any thoughts about how you want to add more resource control features
on top of/in addition to this setup. (Such as memory etc)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:23:
Takahiro-san wrote, in reply to Paul:
> > 2) Would a structure similar to Dinakar's patches to connect
> > cpusets and dynamic sched domains (posted to linux-mm)
> > work here as well?
>
> Yes, subcpusets could work with the dynamic sched domains.
Ah - I see I was quite unclear about wha
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:23:23 -0700
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just started reading this - it seems well presented and I think
> you have put much effort into it. Thank-you for posting it.
Thank you for reading my patches!
> I have not yet taken the time to understand it prope
[ Adding Dinakar to explicit cc list, since I mention his work.
Hopefully he can correct any mispresentations of his work I
might have presented.- pj ]
I've just started reading this - it seems well presented and I think
you have put much effort into it. Thank-you for posting it.
I have
16 matches
Mail list logo
