Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267661AbUJJAIi (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:08:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267765AbUJJAIi (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:08:38 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:51676 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267661AbUJJAIZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:08:25 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:05:12 -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: <20041009170512.5edf0b7e.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: 1054 Lines: 22 Matthew writes: > > CKRM aspires to be both a general purpose resource management framework > > and the embodiment of fair share scheduling. > > I think your missing something here. CKRM, as I understand it, aspires > to be a general purpose resource management framework. To that point I > will accede. But the second part, about CKRM being the embodiment of > fair share scheduling, is secondary. Ok - you may well be right that CKRM does not aspire to be the embodiment of fair share scheduling. But doesn't it embody a fair share sheduler (and no other such policy) as a matter of current implementation fact? -- 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/