On 7/9/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - splitting the memory and cpu isolation parts of cpusets into two > > separate subsystems (still backwards-compatible) > > I see memory isolation using cpusets as very topology dependent > and I am not sure if the model would work for memory controllers.
I wasn't suggesting making any changes to the page-based memory controllers as part of this. Currently in the mainline kernel, the cpumask and nodemask portions of cpusets are essentially two mostly-independent modules that happen to be coupled together in the same file and use the same process tracking system (cpusets). Once we have generic process containers, splitting this into a "cpusets" subsystem that handles all the cpumask portions of the existing cpusets, and a "memsets" subsystem that handles all the nodemask and memory migration portions would remove that coupling and give more flexibility. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
