Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement

[Martin J. Bligh]

>  1) Are you going to prevent sched_setaffinity calls as well?

Outside of the the exclusive domain they're bound into, yes.

>     What about the per-cpu kernel threads?

Those are set up before the userspace domains, so will fall into
whatever domain they're bound to.

<cut lots of other stuff ...>

I think we're now getting down into really obscure requirements for
particular types of wierd MP jobs. Whether Linux wants to support that
or not is open to debate, but personally, given the complexity involved,
I'd be against it.

I agree with the basic partitioning stuff - and see a need for that. The
non-exclusive stuff I think is fairly obscure, and unnecessary complexity
at this point, as 90% of it is covered by CKRM. It's Andrew and Linus's 
decision, but that's my input.

We'll never be able to provide every single feature everyone wants without
overloading the kernel with reams of complexity. It's also an evolutionary
process of putting in the most important stuff first, and seeing how it
goes. I see that as the exclusive domain stuff (when we find a better
implementation than cpus_allowed) + the CKRM scheduling resource control.
I know you have other opinions.

M.

-
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/