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

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

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>There's no relation to PAGG but I think cpusets and CKRM should be
>>made to come together. One of CKRM's user interfaces is a filesystem
>>with the file-tree representing the class hierarchy. It's the same for
>>cpusets. 
> 
> 
> OK, that makes sense ...
> 
> 
>>I'd vote for cpusets going in soon. CKRM could be extended by
>>a cpusets controller which should be pretty trivial when using the
>>infrastructure of this patch. It simply needs to create classes
>>(cpusets) and attach processes to them. The enforcement of resources
>>happens automatically. When CKRM is mature to enter the kernel, one
>>could drop /dev/cpusets in favor of the CKRM way of doing it.
> 
> 
> But I think that's dangerous. It's very hard to get rid of existing user
> interfaces ... I'd much rather we sorted out what we're doing BEFORE
> putting either in the kernel.
> 
> M.
> 

We, CKRM, can put this on our stack, once we have settled how we are 
going to address the structural requirements that came out of the kernel 
summit.

As indicated above, this would mean to create a resource controller
and assign mask to them, which is not what we have done so far, as
our current controllers are more share focused. This should be a good 
excercise.

While we are on the topic, do you envision these sets to be somewhat 
hierarchical or simply a flat hierarchy ?

-- Hubertus Franke