From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:09:19 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: Virtual NUMA machine and CKRM Message-ID: <223620000.1117202959@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20050527.221613.78716667.taka@valinux.co.jp> References: <20050519003008.GC25076@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050527.221613.78716667.taka@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hirokazu Takahashi , sekharan@us.ibm.com Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > Why don't you implement CKRM memory controller as virtual NUMA > node. > > I think what you want do is almost what NUMA code does, which > restricts resources to use. If you define virtual NUMA node with > some memory and some virtual CPUs, you can just assign target jobs > to them. > > What do you think of my idea? Please don't do that. For one, it'll make a mess of the NUMA code. For another, it'll get really complicated once you have CKRM on top of a NUMA system. Don't confuse the physical aspects of the machines (its NUMA topology) with virtual resource limits. M. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org