From: Matthew D. <col...@us...> - 2005-02-08 19:00:36
|
Dinakar Guniguntala wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:59:49PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > > >>Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with Paul >>Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince either >>him or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM is as easy as I once believed. >>I'm still convinced the CPU side is doable, but I haven't managed as much >>success with the memory binding side of CPUSETs. In light of this, I'd >>like to remove my previous objections to CPUSETs moving forward. If others >>still have things they want discussed before CPUSETs moves into mainline, >>that's fine, but it seems to me that CPUSETs offer legitimate functionality >>and that the code has certainly "done its time" in -mm to convince me it's >>stable and usable. >> >>-Matt >> > > > 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 ? > > Regards, > > Dinakar Yes. I still think that there is room for merging on the CPU scheduling side between CPUSETs and sched domains, and I will continue to work on that aspect. The reason Paul and I decided that they weren't totally reconcilable is because of the memory binding side of the CPUSETs code. -Matt |