Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains

[Nick Piggin]

Jesse Barnes wrote:
> 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, I'm sure you are covered. The situation I thought of would be
something like the following:

CPUs 0-63, all within distance 4 --- gap distance 5 --- CPUs 64-127.

Where you wouldn't have any overlap between the two sets of CPUs.
This is probably not applicable to you though.

> > 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.

Yeah I would agree. No doubt you could spend a long time on improving
it. Start simple so you have a baseline of course.

If you're going to be looking at this, take a look at the way we're
building domains in the "[PATCH] consolidate sched domains" patch I
posted the other day. It may simplify your job as well, for example if
you can make use of the init_sched_build_groups function.

-
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/