Takahiro-san wrote:
> This seems good for me.
> I'd like to make sure that tasks in CPUSET 2a and CPUSET 2b actually
> have the cpumask of CPUSET 1a. Is this correct?
Oh I think not. My primary motivation in pushing on this point
of the design was to allow CPUSET 2a and 2b to have a smaller
cpumask than CPUSET 1a. This is used for example to allow a job
that is running in 1a to setup two child cpusets, 2a and 2b,
to run two subtasks that are constrained to smaller portions of
the CPUs allowed to the job in 1a.
How would hacking cpuset_cpus_allowed() help here?
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
