Re: [Lse-tech] Re: CPUSET Proposal

From: William Lee Irwin III <wli_at_holomorphy.com>
Date: 2003-09-25 16:59:36
At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> It's meant to flatten the hierarchy ...
>>  ...
>> The hierarchy is meant to be there, just ...

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:51:20PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> _What_ is meant to flatten the hierarchy ??  To what does "It" refer ??
> So is the hierarchy of CKRM there or not -- you've confused me.
> And in any case, are we in agreement that any such CKRM hierarchy
> is not isomorphic to the cpuset hierarchy?

The numerical share assignments.

I don't have the intestinal fortitude to pore over the pronouns used
in the last message.

The hierarchy used in CKRM is there.

I don't know if the CKRM hierarchy is different from yours or not.
It's a subgraph of the process inheritance hierarchy.

At any rate, I'll hope my little request to have similar mechanisms
consolidated is heeded somehow and bow out at this point.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Sep 25 03:02:03 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:17 EST