Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing

[Paul Jackson]

Gregory wrote:
> This is correct.  We have the balance policy polymorphically associated
> with each sched_class, and the CFS load-balancer and RT "load" (really,
> priority) balancer can coexist together at the same time and across
> arbitrary #s of cores

So ... we have the option of having all sched_classes coexist polymorphically.

That I didn't realize until this thread.

Now ... do we -want- to ?)

That is, what is the easiest kernel-user API to work with and understand?

Is it one where we essentially expose sched_class to user space, and let
them pick their sched_class, or pick none of the above (don't balance)?

Or is it one where, other than the special case my batch schedulers need
to not balance at all, we expose nothing more to user space, and provide
all sched_class load balancers to all sched_domains (other than those
not balanced at all)?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/