linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20071029124510.002559e0.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:45:10 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc:	rientjes@...gle.com, clameter@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

Lee wrote:
> Again, we stumble upon the notion of "intent".  If the intent is just to
> spread allocations to share bandwidth, it probably doesn't matter.  If,
> on the other hand, the original mask was carefully constructed, taking
> into consideration the distances between the memories specified and
> other resources [cpus in the cpuset, other memories in the cpuset, IO
> adpater connection points, ...], there is a lot more to consider than
> just preserving the cpuset relative positions of the nodes.

Yes - as I noted in an earlier reply, the kernel just provides the
mechanisms.  It's up to user level code and people to decide whether
moving jobs around is a worthwhile activity in their situation.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/