On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:36:46AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > This is where I see the need for "CPU sets". I.e. as a
> > replacement/modification to the CPU affinity mechanism basically adding
> > an extra level of abstraction to make it easier to use for implementing
> > the type of isolation that people seem to want. I say this because,
> > strictly speaking and as you imply, the current affinity mechanism is
> > sufficient to provide that isolation BUT it would be a huge pain to
> > implement.
>
> The way cpusets uses the current cpus_allowed mechanism is, to me, the most
> worrying thing about it. Frankly, the cpus_allowed thing is kind of tacked
> onto the existing scheduler, and not at all integrated into it, and doesn't
> work well if you use it heavily (eg bind all the processes to a few CPUs,
> and watch the rest of the system kill itself).
7 years ago, before cpus_allowed was dreamed up, I proposed a pset patch
and was shot down hard. Now it's back, and we're trying to find a way to
cram it in on top.
Yeah, it does not fit nicely with cpus_allowed.
I have to ask - do we REALLY need cpusets? I meant, even SGI dropped
PSET at some point, because (if I recall) NO ONE USED IT.
What's the problem being solved that *requires* psets?
I have a customer I work with periodically who was using my pset patch up
until they moved to RH8, when the O(1) scheduler and cpus_allowed changed
everything. This was their requirement for pset:
1. Take a processor out of the general execution pool (call it
PROC_RESTRICTED). This processor will not schedule general tasks.
2. Assign a task to the PROC_RESTRICTED cpu. Now that CPU will only
schedule the assigned task (and it's children).
3. Repeat for every CPU, with the caveat that one CPU must remain
PROC_ENABLED.
I had an array of enum procstate and a new syscall pair:
sched_{gs}etprocstate(). The scheduler checks the procstate, and if it is
not ENABLED, it checks that (cpus_allowed == 1<<cpu). Simple, but works.
Could be baked a bit more, for general use.
What if I proposed a patch like this, now? It would require cleanup for
2.6, but I'm game if it's useful.
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------
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
