Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267363AbUJIUap (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:30:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267367AbUJIUNq (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:13:46 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:3535 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267362AbUJIULu (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:11:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:08:08 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: colpatch@us.ibm.com Cc: frankeh@watson.ibm.com, ricklind@us.ibm.com, mbligh@aracnet.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, dipankar@in.ibm.com, 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, ak@suse.de, sivanich@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement Message-Id: <20041009130808.70c56ea3.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1097283613.6470.146.camel@arrakis> References: <20041007015107.53d191d4.pj@sgi.com> <200410071053.i97ArLnQ011548@owlet.beaverton.ibm.com> <20041007072842.2bafc320.pj@sgi.com> <4165A31E.4070905@watson.ibm.com> <20041008061426.6a84748c.pj@sgi.com> <4166B569.60408@watson.ibm.com> <20041008112319.63b694de.pj@sgi.com> <1097283613.6470.146.camel@arrakis> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-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: 2909 Lines: 56 Matthrew, responding to Paul: > > If for whatever reason, you don't think it is worth the effort to morph > > the virtual resouce manager that is currently embedded within CKRM into > > an independent, neutral framework, then don't expect the rest of us to > > embrace it. Do you think Reiser would have gladly used vfs to plug in > > his file system if it had been called "ext"? In my personal opinion, it > > would be foolhardy for SGI, NEC, Bull, Platform (LSF) or Altair (PBS) to > > rely on critical technology so clearly biased toward and dominated by a > > natural competitor. > > I don't think that is terribly fair. I can honestly say that I'm not > opposing your implementation because of who you work for. Good point. I was painting with too wide a brush (hmmm ... someday I should see if I can get through an entire post without an analogy ...) When people show a good ability to work with others on lkml who have a shared interest and sufficient competence in an area, then it doesn't much matter what company they work for. I see such a discussion happening on another portion of this thread, with yourself, Nick, Peter and Erich, involving the domain scheduler. That works well. So far I have been unable to achieve confidence in my ability to interact well with the key CKRM folks. In various ways, I have found their project, and their demeanor on this list, to be difficult for me to approach. Normally this wouldn't matter. However Andrew and others have proposed that cpusets have a critical dependency on CKRM. Now it matters. If I am to have a critical project dependency on an external group with whom I lack confidence that we share sufficient common interest and a healthy ability to communicate, then I prefer a more adversarial style of relations, with explicit contracts, minimum clearly defined and verifiable deliverables, and suitable fallback contingencies in place. I keep a sharp eye out for potential conflicts of interest. My suggestion to separate the virtual resource management framework (which I named 'vrm') from CKRM's other elements, such as fair share scheduling, was an attempt to establish such a minimum verifiable deliverable. That suggestion was clearly dead on arrival. My apologies for implicating everyone whose email ends in "ibm.com" in my earlier comment. IBM is a big place, and all manner and variety of people work there. It's a pleasure working with yourself, Matthew, and many others from IBM. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 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/