Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:38:03 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: efocht@hpce.nec.com, akpm@osdl.org, nagar@watson.ibm.com,
       ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, 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
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement
Message-Id: <20041004083803.7de17984.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <842970000.1096901859@[10.10.2.4]>
References: <20040805100901.3740.99823.84118@sam.engr.sgi.com>
	<200410032221.26683.efocht@hpce.nec.com>
	<20041003134842.79270083.akpm@osdl.org>
	<200410041605.30395.efocht@hpce.nec.com>
	<842970000.1096901859@[10.10.2.4]>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 878
Lines: 19

Martin wrote:
> I'd think the problems would be easier to tackle if the systems knew
> about each other, and talked to each other.

Clear boundaries should be enough.  If each instance of CKRM is assured
that it has control of some subset of a system that's separate and
non-overlapping, with all Memory, CPU, Tasks, and Allowed masks of said
Tasks either wholly owned by that CKRM instance, or entirely outside,
then that should do it, right?

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/