Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932262AbVIJHO5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:14:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932711AbVIJHO4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:14:56 -0400 Received: from sv1.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.2]:34728 "EHLO sv1.valinux.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932262AbVIJHO4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:14:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:11:45 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050910.161145.74742186.taka@valinux.co.jp> To: pj@sgi.com Cc: magnus.damm@gmail.com, kurosawa@valinux.co.jp, dino@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] SUBCPUSETS: a resource control functionality using CPUSETS From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: <20050909063131.64dc8155.pj@sgi.com> References: <20050908225539.0bc1acf6.pj@sgi.com> <20050909.203849.33293224.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20050909063131.64dc8155.pj@sgi.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) 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: 1723 Lines: 42 Hi, > > What do you think if you make cpusets for sched domain be able to > > have their siblings, which have the same attribute and share > > their resources between them. > > I do not understand this question. I guess "cpusets for sched > domains" means "cpusets whose 'cpu_exclusive' attribute is > marked true, but which have no child cpusets so marked." Yes. > But even that guess I am unsure of, and the rest of the sentence > "which have the same ..." I don't even have a guess what means. Sorry for the poor explanation. I just thought that it wouldn't be bad to allow "each cpuset whose cpu_exclusive attribute is mark true" to have its clones like the figure below. In this case, cpu-2 and cpu-3 will be used exclusively for the clones --- CPUSET 1, 2, and 3 ---. I guess it seems very similar to one of your ideas except for reusing cpu_exclusive flag. Do you think reusing the flag is good idea? +-------------------+----------------+----------------+ | | | | CPUSET 0 CPUSET 1 CPUSET 2 CPUSET 3 sched domain A sched domain B sched domain B sched domain B cpus: 0, 1 cpus: 2, 3 cpus: 2, 3 cpus: 2, 3 cpu_exclusive cpu_exclusive cpu_exclusive cpu_exclusive meter_cpu meter_cpu meter_cpu <------should we call it resouce domain?------> Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi. - 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/