On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:38 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote:
>
> > cpusets provides cpu and memory NODES binding to tasks. And I think it
> > works great for NUMA machines where you have different nodes with its
> > own set of CPUs and memory. The number of those nodes on a commodity HW
> > is still 1. And they can have 8-16 CPUs and in access of 100G of
> > memory. You may start using fake nodes (untested territory) to
>
> See linux-mm. We just went through a series of tests and functionality
> wise it worked just fine.
>
I thought the fake NUMA support still does not work on x86_64 baseline
kernel. Though Paul and Andrew have patches to make it work.
> > translate a single node machine into N different nodes. But am not sure
> > if this number of nodes can change dynamically on the running machine or
> > a reboot is required to change the number of nodes.
>
> This is commonly discussed under the subject of memory hotplug.
>
So now we depend on getting memory hot-plug to work for faking up these
nodes ...for the memory that is already present in the system. It just
does not sound logical.
> > Though when you want to have in access of 100 containers then the cpuset
> > function starts popping up on the oprofile chart very aggressively. And
> > this is the cost that shouldn't have to be paid (particularly) for a
> > single node machine.
>
> Yes this is a new way of using cpusets but it works and we could fix the
> scalability issues rather than adding new subsystems.
>
I think when you have 100's of zones then cost of allocating a page will
include checking cpuset validation and different zone list traversals
and checks...unless there is major surgery.
> > And what happens when you want to have cpuset with memory that needs to
> > be even further fine grained than each node.
>
> New node?
>
Am not clear how is this possible. Could you or Paul please explain.
> > Containers also provide a mechanism to move files to containers. Any
> > further references to this file come from the same container rather than
> > the container which is bringing in a new page.
>
> Hmmmm... Thats is interesting.
>
> > In future there will be more handlers like CPU and disk that can be
> > easily embeded into this container infrastructure.
>
> I think we should have one container mechanism instead of multiple. Maybe
> merge the two? The cpuset functionality is well established and working
> right.
>
I agree that we will need one container subsystem in the long run.
Something that can easily adapt to different configurations.
-rohit
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
