From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:39:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] top level scheduler domain for ia64 Message-Id: <200411011439.08947.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200410191427.27336.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200410191427.27336.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Monday, November 1, 2004 11:45 am, Luck, Tony wrote: > I'd pose a broader question ... are the manufacturers of big machines happy > with three domains? Perhaps it makes sense to allow for more levels that > match the physical parameters of the machine. E.g. the NEC box has 4 cpus > per-node, and 4 nodes in a "super-node", and 2 "super-nodes" in a machine. > It would make sense to me if there was a scheduler domain level that would > handle balancing between the nodes in a super-node in addition to the > top-level domain to handle balancing between super-nodes. > > While the values in SLIT can be somewhat abstract, they could be used to > derive the whole node, super-node, hyper-node, ultra-node, > marketting-zeta-node structure to build as many levels as make sense into > the scheduler. > > Or am I over-engineering? Just guessing, but I think that might be overkill. We'd have to collect data to know for sure though (which means someone has to implement it :). Jesse