Re: [PATCH] top level scheduler domain for ia64

From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes_at_engr.sgi.com>
Date: 2004-11-02 09:39:08
On Monday, November 1, 2004 11:45 am, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I'd pose a broader question ... are the manufacturers of big machines happy
> with three domains?  Perhaps it makes sense to allow for more levels that
> match the physical parameters of the machine.  E.g. the NEC box has 4 cpus
> per-node, and 4 nodes in a "super-node", and 2 "super-nodes" in a machine.
> It would make sense to me if there was a scheduler domain level that would
> handle balancing between the nodes in a super-node in addition to the
> top-level domain to handle balancing between super-nodes.
>
> While the values in SLIT can be somewhat abstract, they could be used to
> derive the whole node, super-node, hyper-node, ultra-node,
> marketting-zeta-node structure to build as many levels as make sense into
> the scheduler.
>
> Or am I over-engineering?

Just guessing, but I think that might be overkill.  We'd have to collect data 
to know for sure though (which means someone has to implement it :).

Jesse
-
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 Tue Nov 2 00:06:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:32 EST