Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

[Paul Jackson]

Lee wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to think we can
> infer the intent of the application from the nodemask w/o additional
> flags such as Christoph proposed [cpuset relative]--especially for
> subsets of the cpuset.  E.g., the application could intend the nodemask
> to specify memories within a certain distance of a physical resource,
> such as where a particular IO adapter or set thereof attach to the
> platform.

Well, yes, we can't presume to know whether some application can move
or not.

But our kernel work is not presuming that.

It's providing mechanisms useful for moving apps.

The people using this decide what and when and if to move.

For example, the particular customers (HPC) I focus on for my job don't
move jobs because they don't want to take the transient performance
hit that would come from blowing out all their memory caches.

I'm guessing that David's situation involves something closer what you
see with a shared web hosting service, running jobs that are very
independent of hardware particulars.

But in any case, we (the kernel) are just providing the mechanisms.
If they don't fit ones needs, don't use them ;).

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/