Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267551AbUJBUpf (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:45:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267552AbUJBUpf (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:45:35 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:62114 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267551AbUJBUpd (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:45:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:40:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Hubertus Franke Cc: mef@CS.Princeton.EDU, nagar@watson.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, pj@sgi.com, efocht@hpce.nec.com, mbligh@aracnet.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 Message-Id: <20041002134059.65b45e29.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <415ED4A4.1090001@watson.ibm.com> References: <415ED4A4.1090001@watson.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1408 Lines: 30 Hubertus Franke wrote: > > Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation. Despite what Paul says, his customers *do not* "require" physical isolation [*]. That's like an accountant requiring that his spreadsheet be written in Pascal. He needs slapping. Isolation is merely the means by which cpusets implements some higher-level customer requirement. I want to see a clearer description of what that higher-level requirement is. Then I'd like to see some thought put into whether CKRM (with probably a new controller) can provide a good-enough implementation of that requirement. Coming at this from the other direction: CKRM is being positioned as a general purpose resource management framework, yes? Isolation is a simple form of resource management. If the CKRM framework simply cannot provide this form of isolation then it just failed its first test, did it not? [*] Except for the case where there is graphics (or other) hardware close to a particular node. In that case it is obvious that CPU-group pinning is the only way in which to satisfy the top-level requirement of "make access to the graphics hardware be efficient". - 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/