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

From: Peter Williams
Date: Sat Oct 02 2004 - 18:31:11 EST


Hubertus Franke wrote:


Paul Jackson wrote:

Hubertus wrote:

Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation.



This is slightly too terse for my dense brain to grok.
Could you elaborate just a little, Hubertus? Thanks.


A minimal quote from your website :-)

"CpuMemSets provides a new Linux kernel facility that enables system services and applications to specify on which CPUs they may be scheduled, and from which nodes they may allocate memory."

Since I have addressed the cpu section it seems obvious that
in order to ISOLATE different workloads, you associate them onto
non-overlapping cpusets, thus technically they are physically isolated
from each other on said chosen CPUs.

Given that cpuset hierarchies translate into cpu-affinity masks,
this desired isolation can result in lost cycles globally.

This argument if followed to its logical conclusion would advocate the abolition of CPU affinity masks completely.


I believe this to be orthogonal to share settings. To me both
are extremely desirable features.

I also pointed out that if you separate mechanism from API, it
is possible to move the CPU set API under the CKRM framework.
I have not thought about the memory aspect.

-- Hubertus


-
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/



--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/