From: Martin J. B. <mb...@ar...> - 2004-10-08 14:25:52
|
> On Thursday 07 October 2004 20:13, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> It all just seems like a lot of complexity for a fairly obscure set of >> requirements for a very limited group of users, to be honest. Some bits >> (eg partitioning system resources hard in exclusive sets) would seem likely >> to be used by a much broader audience, and thus are rather more attractive. > > May I translate the first sentence to: the requirements and usage > models described by Paul (SGI), Simon (Bull) and myself (NEC) are > "fairly obscure" and the group of users addressed (those mainly > running high performance computing (AKA HPC) applications) is "very > limited"? If this is what you want to say then it's you whose view is > very limited. Maybe I'm wrong with what you really wanted to say but I > remember similar arguing from your side when discussing benchmark > results in the context of the node affine scheduler. No, I was talking about the non-exclusive part of cpusets that wouldn't fit inside another mechanism. The basic partitioning I have no problem with, and that seemed to cover most of the requirements, AFAICS. As I've said before, the exclusive stuff makes sense, and is useful to a wider audience, I think. Having non-exclusive stuff whilst still requiring physical partioning is what I think is obscure, won't work well (cpus_allowed is problematic) and could be done in userspace anyway. M. |