On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > SGI's CpuMemSets is supposed to do that as well. We are now able to bind a
> > process to a set of memories, and soon we will be able to specify how
> > strict the allocation can be. Right now, if a process is allowed to
> > allocate memory from node 0, 2, and 3, it won't look outside of this set.
> > The memory set granularity is smaller though, because it depends on the
> > process, and the cpu (and thus the node) this process is running on.
> > The CpuMemSets have been tested and are available on the Linux Scalability
> > Effort sourceforge page, if you want to give it a try...
>
> The problem with CpuMemSets is that it's mind-bogglingly
> complex - I think we need something simpler ... at least
> to start with.
Yes, I agree with the fact that it is complex. Right now, you need
to get a good understanding of them in order for them to be useful.
However I think this is the price to pay for something that covers a large
range of cases, from the simplest one to very complex ones. The simpler
implementation you are talking about will be useless as soon as you'll
need to cover more complex cases.
A good thing would be to define an API on top of CpuMemSets to allow
interested people to use them quickly for those simple cases.
Samuel.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:38 EST