Hubertus writes:
>
> That's one of the sticking points.
> That would require that TASKCLASSES and cpumemsets must go along the
> same hierarchy. With CPUmemsets being the top part of the hierarchy.
> In other words the task classes can not span different cpusets.
Can task classes span an entire cpuset subtree? I can well imagine that
an entire subtree of the cpuset tree should be managed by the same CKRM
policies and shares.
In particular, if we emulate the setaffinity/mbind/mempolicy calls by
forking a child cpuset to represent the new restrictions on the task
affected by those calls, then we'd for sure want to leave that task in
the same CKRM policy realm as it was before.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.650.933.1373
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
