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

[Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:39, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Matthew  wrote:
> > 
> > I feel that the actual implementation, however, is taking
> > a wrong approach, because it attempts to use the cpus_allowed mask to
> > override the scheduler in the general case.  cpus_allowed, in my
> > estimation, is meant to be used as the exception, not the rule.
> 
> I agree that big chunks of a large system that are marching to the beat
> of two distinctly different drummers would better have their schedulers
> organized along the domains that you describe, than by brute force abuse
> of the cpus_allowed mask.

Wonderful news! :)


> I look forward to your RFC, Matthew.  Though not being a scheduler guru,
> I will mostly have to rely on the textual commentary in order to
> understand what it means.

Wow, building a fan base already.  I'll need all the cheerleaders I can
get! ;)


> Existing finer grain placement of CPUs (sched_setaffinity) and Memory
> (mbind, set_mempolicy) already exists, and is required by parallel
> threaded applications such as OpenMP and MPI are commonly used to
> develop.

Absolutely.  I have no intention of removing or modifying those
mechanisms.  My only goal is to see that using them remains the
exceptional case, and not the default behavior of most tasks.


> The finer grain use of non-exclusive cpusets, in order to support
> such workload managers as PBS and LSF in managing this finer grained
> placement on a system (domain) wide basis should not be placing any
> significantly further load on the schedulers or resource managers.
> 
> The top level cpusets must provide additional isolation properties so
> that separate scheduler and resource manager domains can work in
> relative isolation.  I've tried hard to speculate what these additional
> isolation properties might be.  I look forward to hearing from the CKRM
> and scheduler folks on this.  I agree that simple unconstrained (ab)use
> of the cpus_allowed and mems_allowed masks, at that scale, places an
> undo burden on the schedulers, allocators and resource managers.

I'm really glad to hear that, Paul.  That unconstrained (ab)use was my
only real concern with the cpusets patches.  I look forward to massaging
our two approaches into something that will satisfy all interested
parties.

-Matt