Matthew wrote:
> > Perhaps these flags should be called:
> > mems_exclusive_precursor
> > cpus_exclusive_precursor
> > ;).
>
> Ok... So if we could offer the 'real' exclusion that the PBS and LSF
> workload managers offer directly, would that suffice? Meaning, could we
> make PBS and LSF work on top of in-kernel mechanisms that offer 'real'
> exclusion. 'Real' exclusion defined as isolated groups of CPUs and
> memory that the kernel can guarantee will not run other processes? That
> way we can get the job done without having to rely on these external
> workload managers, and be able to offer this dynamic partitioning to all
> users. Thoughts?
I agree entirely. Before when I was being a penny pincher about
how much went in the kernel, it might have made sense to have
the mems_exclusive and cpus_exclusive precursor flags.
But now that we have demonstrated a bone fide need for a really
really exclusive cpuset, it was silly of me to consider offering:
> > mems_exclusive_precursor
> > cpus_exclusive_precursor
> > really_really_exclusive
These multiple flavors just confuse and annoy.
You're right. Just one flag option, for the really exclusive cpuset,
is required here.
A different scheduler domain (whether same scheduler with awareness of
the boundaries, or something more substantially distinct) may only be
attached to a cpuset if it is exclusive.
--
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
