Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269313AbUJKWnk (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:43:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269315AbUJKWnk (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:43:40 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:14251 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269313AbUJKWng (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:43:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:39:57 -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: <20041011153957.1111dc06.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1097533108.4038.64.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> <20041009170512.5edf0b7e.pj@sgi.com> <1097533108.4038.64.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: 1287 Lines: 27 > Yes. That is true, but it is by no means meant to be the end-all, > be-all of CKRM. All well and good. Except that it has taken me an inordinate amount of effort to grok what CKRM is, and this mingling of a framework for resource management with one particular instance of such, a fair share scheduler, has contributed to my confusions. My teen age son can no doubt offer additional explanations for my confusions. And indeed, while a new kernel framework should come with at least one good example of something worth so framing, still it's better to keep the two clearly distinguished. If these two are well distinguished now, then I am unaware of that. Perhaps this effort to add a placement manager to the existing fair share manager in CKRM's repetoire will result in a clearer separation of the CKRM framework from that which it frames. -- 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/