Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267474AbUJBSTO (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:19:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267466AbUJBSTO (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:19:14 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:7103 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267474AbUJBSTH (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:19:07 -0400 Message-ID: <415EF069.7090902@watson.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:16:09 -0400 From: Hubertus Franke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, efocht@hpce.nec.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, hch@infradead.org, steiner@sgi.com, jbarnes@sgi.com, sylvain.jeaugey@bull.net, djh@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, colpatch@us.ibm.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, sivanich@sgi.com, llp@CS.Princeton.EDU Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement References: <415ED4A4.1090001@watson.ibm.com> <20041002105305.2caf97ae.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20041002105305.2caf97ae.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1328 Lines: 41 Paul Jackson wrote: > Hubertus wrote: > >>Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation. > > > This is slightly too terse for my dense brain to grok. > Could you elaborate just a little, Hubertus? Thanks. > A minimal quote from your website :-) "CpuMemSets provides a new Linux kernel facility that enables system services and applications to specify on which CPUs they may be scheduled, and from which nodes they may allocate memory." Since I have addressed the cpu section it seems obvious that in order to ISOLATE different workloads, you associate them onto non-overlapping cpusets, thus technically they are physically isolated from each other on said chosen CPUs. Given that cpuset hierarchies translate into cpu-affinity masks, this desired isolation can result in lost cycles globally. I believe this to be orthogonal to share settings. To me both are extremely desirable features. I also pointed out that if you separate mechanism from API, it is possible to move the CPU set API under the CKRM framework. I have not thought about the memory aspect. -- Hubertus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/