Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:43:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, dgc@sgi.com, steiner@sgi.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net,
       ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clameter@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
Message-ID: <20060206074334.GA28035@elte.hu>
References: <20060204071910.10021.8437.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20060204154944.36387a86.akpm@osdl.org> <20060205203358.1fdcea43.akpm@osdl.org> <20060205215052.c5ab1651.pj@sgi.com> <20060205220204.194ba477.akpm@osdl.org> <20060206061743.GA14679@elte.hu> <20060205232253.ddbf02d7.pj@sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060205232253.ddbf02d7.pj@sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 858
Lines: 20


* Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:

> The tasks we are talking about do -not- want a default RANDOM policy.  
> They want node-local allocation for per-thread data (data and stack 
> for example), and at the same time spread allocation for kernel space 
> (page and slab cache).

ok, i think i got that. Could you perhaps outline two actual use-cases 
that would need two cpusets with different policies, on the same box? Or 
would you set the spread-out policy for every cpuset that is used in a 
box with lots of cpusets, to achieve fairness? (and not bother about it 
on boxes with dedicated workloads)

	Ingo
-
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/