Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing

["Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>]

>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at  3:56 PM, in message
<20080129145647.579b7d53.pj@sgi.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: 
> Gregory wrote:
>> By moving it into the root_domain structure, there is now an instance
>> per (um, for lack of a better, more up to date word) "exclusive"
>> cpuset.   That way, disparate cpusets will not bother each other with
>> overload notifications, etc.
> 
> So the root_domain structure is meant to be the portions of the
> sched_domains that are shared across all CPUs in that sched_domain ?

Thats exactly right.

> 
> And the word 'cpuset', occurring in the above quote twice, should
> be 'sched_domain', right ?  Surely these aren't cpuset's ;).

Yeah, I think I am taking shortcuts in the language ;).  I wanted the root_domain to be an object of shared data that sits at the "root sched_domain", or in other terms the terminating parent in the hierarchy.  And there is one of these suckers created every time a non-overlapping cpuset is created (which was called "exclusive" at the time I wrote it, I believe, but I keep forgetting what you said they are called now ;).  So because the non-overlapping cpuset configuration begat the sched_domain hierarchy, I started using them interchangeably.  Sorry for the confusion :)

> 
> And 'exclusive cpuset' really means 'non-overlapping sched_domain' ?
> 
> Or am I still confused ?

No, I think you nailed it.

> 
> I would like to get our concepts clear, and terms consistent.  That's
> important for those others who would try to understand this.

Very good idea.  Thanks for doing this!

-Greg