Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement

Matthew Dobson
2005-02-08T19:00:54Z

Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:59:49PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with Paul
>>Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince either
>>him or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM is as easy as I once believed.
>>I'm still convinced the CPU side is doable, but I haven't managed as much
>>success with the memory binding side of CPUSETs. In light of this, I'd
>>like to remove my previous objections to CPUSETs moving forward. If others
>>still have things they want discussed before CPUSETs moves into mainline,
>>that's fine, but it seems to me that CPUSETs offer legitimate functionality
>>and that the code has certainly "done its time" in -mm to convince me it's
>>stable and usable.
>>
>>-Matt
>>
>
>
> What about your proposed sched domain changes?
> Cant sched domains be used handle the CPU groupings and the
> existing code in cpusets that handle memory continue as is?
> Weren't sched somains supposed to give the scheduler better knowledge
> of the CPU groupings afterall ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dinakar

Yes. I still think that there is room for merging on the CPU scheduling side
between CPUSETs and sched domains, and I will continue to work on that aspect.
The reason Paul and I decided that they weren't totally reconcilable is
because of the memory binding side of the CPUSETs code.

-Matt