From: Nick P. <nic...@ya...> - 2005-02-08 23:26:43
|
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>>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 ;-) > Yes :) I was thinking the sched domains soft-partitioning could be a useful feature in its own right, considering the runtime impact would be exactly zero, and the setup code should already be mostly there. If anyone was interested, I could try to cook up an implementation on the scheduler side. The biggest issues may be the userspace interface and a decent userspace management tool. |