> On Thursday 07 October 2004 20:13, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> It all just seems like a lot of complexity for a fairly obscure set of >> requirements for a very limited group of users, to be honest. Some bits >> (eg partitioning system resources hard in exclusive sets) would seem likely >> to be used by a much broader audience, and thus are rather more attractive. > > May I translate the first sentence to: the requirements and usage > models described by Paul (SGI), Simon (Bull) and myself (NEC) are > "fairly obscure" and the group of users addressed (those mainly > running high performance computing (AKA HPC) applications) is "very > limited"? If this is what you want to say then it's you whose view is > very limited. Maybe I'm wrong with what you really wanted to say but I > remember similar arguing from your side when discussing benchmark > results in the context of the node affine scheduler.
No, I was talking about the non-exclusive part of cpusets that wouldn't fit inside another mechanism. The basic partitioning I have no problem with, and that seemed to cover most of the requirements, AFAICS. As I've said before, the exclusive stuff makes sense, and is useful to a wider audience, I think. Having non-exclusive stuff whilst still requiring physical partioning is what I think is obscure, won't work well (cpus_allowed is problematic) and could be done in userspace anyway. M. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
