Hi,
> Well, I suspect I don't understand yet.
>
> Nice picture though - that gives me some idea what you mean.
>
> Do notice that the basic rule of cpu_exclusive cpusets is that their
> CPUs don't overlap their siblings. Your Cpusets 1, 2, and 3 seem to be
> marked cpu_exclusive in your picture, but all contain the same CPUs 2
> and 3, overlapping each other.
Yes, I know the current design of cpu_exclusive.
I just thought if I could enhance cpu_exclusive to cover a group of
cpusets to make the hierarchy as flat as possible.
> I'm guessing what you are trying to draw is:
>
> Tasks on CPUs 0 and 1 have no resource control limits.
I thought CPU 1 could have resource control limits.
> Tasks on CPUs 2 and 3 have resource control limits specifying
> what percentage of the CPUs 2 and 3 is available to them.
>
> I might draw my solution to that as:
I understand your idea clearly, which is essentially the same as
Korosawa's design. Your design looks very straight and I have
no objection to it.
My only concern is that it would become harder to control resources
between CPUSET 1a,1b and 1c if some processes are assigned to CPUSET 1
directly. But I just get an idea that it would be OK if CPUSET 1 can
have meter_cpu=1 to share the resources.
> +-----------------------------------+
> | |
> CPUSET 0 CPUSET 1
> sched domain A sched domain B
> cpus: 0, 1 cpus: 2, 3
> cpu_exclusive=1 cpu_exclusive=1
> meter_cpu=0 meter_cpu=0
> |
> +----------------+----------------+
> | | |
> CPUSET 1a CPUSET 1b CPUSET 1c
> cpus: 2, 3 cpus: 2, 3 cpus: 2, 3
> cpu_exclusive=0 cpu_exclusive=0 cpu_exclusive=0
> meter_cpu=1 meter_cpu=1 meter_cpu=1
> meter_cpu_* meter_cpu_* meter_cpu_*
>
> The meter_cpu_* files in each of Cpusets 1a, 1b, and 1c control what
> proportion of the CPU resources in that Cpuset can be used by the tasks
> in that Cpuset.
>
> If meter_cpu is false (0) then the meter_cpu_* files do not appear,
> which is equivalent to allowing 100% of the CPUs in that Cpuset to
> be used by the tasks in that Cpuset (and descendents, of course.)
>
> Don't forget - this all seems like it has significant mission overlap
> with CKRM. I hate to repeat this, but the relation of your work to
> CKRM needs to be understood before I am likely to agree to accepting
> your work into the kernel (not that my acceptance is required; you
> really just need Linus to agree, though he of course considers the
> positions of others to some inscrutable degree.)
OK.
Thanks,
Hirokazu Takahashi.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |