Paul Menage wrote:
> 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
Aaah.. I see, that makes sense from a cpusets/containers perspective.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
