From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hubertus Franke Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:19:05 +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 Paul Jackson wrote: >>Well, the thing is, CKRM essentially has the cross-resource bits and >>makes up some group that can be joined and departed from and inherited >>and so on with all the right knobs ... >> >> > >The hierarchies don't correspond, or do so only accidentally. > >That is, cpusets, as proposed, have a hierarchy such that one >cpuset is the child of another if one cpuset describes a subset >of another's CPUs. > >At first blush, I don't see a hierarchy of CKRM Classes, rather >just a flat space, say Gold, Silver and Bronze. > > Paul, yes CKRM classes at this point are flat, we looked initially at hierarchies and determined that for the first release might add a lot of complexity with questionable benefits for the community at large. So we left hierarchies out. Based on the general community feedback we might have to revisit this issue. Again, I see cpusets and CKRM as addressing two orthogonal issues wrt to cpu's cpusets (partitioning in space) with hierarchies CKRM (time partitioning) how much of time does a class get... -- Hubertus Franke ( CKRM team )