Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains

[Jesse Barnes]

On Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:26 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> You might have the theoretical problem of ending up with more than
> one disjoint top level domain (ie. no overlap, basically partitioning
> the CPUs).

Yes, we'll have several disjoint per-node cpu spans for a large system, but 
nearby nodes *will* overlap with more distant nodes than any given node, so I 
think we're covered, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

> No doubt you could come up with something provably correct, however
> it might just be good enough to examine the end result and check that
> it is good. At least while you test different configurations.

Right.  And ultimately, I think we'll want the hierarchy I mentioned in the 
comments, that'll cover us a little better I think.

Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/