Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Minutes from 5/19 CKRM/PAGG discussion

[Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com>]

Peter Williams wrote:

> Hubertus Franke wrote:
>
>>
>> One important input the PAGG team could give is some real
>> examples where actually multiple associations to different groups
>> is required and help us appreciate that position and let us
>> see how this would/could be done in CKRM.
>
>
> One example would be the implementation of CPU sets (or pools) a la 
> Solaris where there are named CPU pools to which processors and 
> processes are assigned.   Processors can be moved between CPU pools 
> and when this happens it is necessary to visit all the processes that 
> are assigned to the pools involved (one losing and one gaining the 
> processor) and change their CPU affinity masks to reflect the new 
> assignment of processors.  PAGG would be ideal for implementing this.
>
> At the same time, a resource management client could be controlling 
> resources allocated to processes based on some other criteria such as 
> the real user or the application being run without regard to which CPU 
> pool they are running in.
>
> Peter

Good one, at question though is again though is whether the very 
communalities warrant some realignment. We want to hook into the base 
schedulers and be the clearing house or umbrella to consolidate all the 
ideas, such as the well defined RCFS recently introduced together with 
Rik van Riel. PAGG is as stated a way of doing things outside the core 
kernel and hookable schedulers have been several times rejected at the 
lkml base.

One potential is to agree that the communalities are so few that it 
makes sense to continue with both approaches independently.

-- Hubertus