Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261557AbVBHQPU (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:15:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261552AbVBHQPT (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:15:19 -0500 Received: from jade.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.136]:50079 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261574AbVBHQPA (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:15:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:13:07 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Nick Piggin , dino@in.ibm.com Cc: Matthew Dobson , Paul Jackson , pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, 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 , Simon.Derr@bull.net, Andi Kleen , sivanich@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement Message-ID: <43450000.1107879186@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <42088B3E.7050701@yahoo.com.au> References: <20041001164118.45b75e17.akpm@osdl.org> <20041001230644.39b551af.pj@sgi.com> <20041002145521.GA8868@in.ibm.com> <415ED3E3.6050008@watson.ibm.com> <415F37F9.6060002@bigpond.net.au> <821020000.1096814205@[10.10.2.4]> <20041003083936.7c844ec3.pj@sgi.com> <834330000.1096847619@[10.10.2.4]> <1097014749.4065.48.camel@arrakis> <420800F5.9070504@us.ibm.com> <20050208095440.GA3976@in.ibm.com> <42088B3E.7050701@yahoo.com.au> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 983 Lines: 25 >> What about your proposed sched domain changes? >> Cant sched domains be used handle the CPU groupings and the >> existing code in cpusets that handle memory continue as is? >> Weren't sched somains supposed to give the scheduler better knowledge >> of the CPU groupings afterall ? >> > > sched domains can provide non overlapping top level partitions. > It would basically just stop the multiprocessor balancing from > moving tasks between these partitions (they would be manually > moved by setting explicit cpu affinities). > > I didn't really follow where that idea went, but I think at least > a few people thought that sort of functionality wasn't nearly > fancy enough! :) Not fancy seems like a positive thing to me ;-) M. - 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/