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

[Paul Jackson]

Martin writes:
> OK, then your "exclusive" cpusets aren't really exclusive at all, since
> they have other stuff running in them.

What's clear is that 'exclusive' is not a sufficient precondition for
whatever it is that CKRM needs to have sufficient control.

Instead of trying to wrestle 'exclusive' into doing what you want, do me
a favor, if you would.  Help me figure out what conditions CKRM _does_
need to operate within a cpuset, and we'll invent a new property that
satisfies those conditions.

See my earlier posts in the last hour for my efforts to figure out what
these conditions might be.  I conjecture that it's something along the
lines of:

    Assuring each CKRM instance that it has control of some
    subset of a system that's separate and non-overlapping,
    with all Memory, CPU, Tasks, and Allowed masks of said
    Tasks either wholly owned by that CKRM instance, or
    entirely outside.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/