From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268680AbUGXPkg (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:40:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268681AbUGXPkf (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:40:35 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:37004 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268680AbUGXPke (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:40:34 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:40:28 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Dimitri Sivanich , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Hawkes References: <20040722164126.GB13189@sgi.com> <200407231603.09055.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <4101F2ED.3050208@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4101F2ED.3050208@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407241140.29453.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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