Re: [Lse-tech] Re: CPUSET Proposal

[Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>]

> This sounds like it has progressively more commonality with CKRM; the
> notion is of a workclass, not of a purely cpu-oriented notion.

I _knew_ I shouldn't have thrown in that paragraph that began "There are
also some resource management capabilities, ...".

There are two aspects to CKRM - a common classification of service levels,
and hooks in each scheduler of resources to respect those levels.

These cpusets, either as proposed, or possible fancier forms that also
manage memory, do not replace, cannot be replaced by, and do not compete
with CKRM.  Rather they cooperate with CKRM, and represent one more
place, along side network drivers, schedulers and memory allocators,
that eventually will want to respect CKRM service levels.

The point of _this_ subthread was to consider whether this could more or
less entirely be done in user space.  The two aspects even of Simon's
current proposal that I don't see can be done in user space are the
migration, and the permission model.

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