From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Lee Irwin III Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:59:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: CPUSET Proposal Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org At some point in the past, I wrote: >> It's meant to flatten the hierarchy ... >> ... >> The hierarchy is meant to be there, just ... On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:51:20PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > _What_ is meant to flatten the hierarchy ?? To what does "It" refer ?? > So is the hierarchy of CKRM there or not -- you've confused me. > And in any case, are we in agreement that any such CKRM hierarchy > is not isomorphic to the cpuset hierarchy? The numerical share assignments. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to pore over the pronouns used in the last message. The hierarchy used in CKRM is there. I don't know if the CKRM hierarchy is different from yours or not. It's a subgraph of the process inheritance hierarchy. At any rate, I'll hope my little request to have similar mechanisms consolidated is heeded somehow and bow out at this point. -- wli