Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269299AbUJKWUV (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:20:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269300AbUJKWUV (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:20:21 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:9959 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269299AbUJKWTg (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:19:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement From: Matthew Dobson Reply-To: colpatch@us.ibm.com To: Paul Jackson Cc: frankeh@watson.ibm.com, Rick Lindsley , "Martin J. Bligh" , Simon.Derr@bull.net, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, dipankar@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, efocht@hpce.nec.com, LSE Tech , hch@infradead.org, steiner@sgi.com, Jesse Barnes , sylvain.jeaugey@bull.net, djh@sgi.com, LKML , Andi Kleen , sivanich@sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20041009170512.5edf0b7e.pj@sgi.com> 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> <20041009170512.5edf0b7e.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM LTC Message-Id: <1097533108.4038.64.camel@arrakis> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:18:29 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1204 Lines: 26 On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 17:05, Paul Jackson wrote: > 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? Yes. That is true, but it is by no means meant to be the end-all, be-all of CKRM. It is my understanding that the fair share scheduler is a proof-of-concept and an example of how to write a 'controller' for others, but not the full extent of CKRM's power. -Matt - 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/