[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44F707F5.4090008@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:01:57 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Martin Ohlin <martin.ohlin@...trol.lth.se>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, balbir@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller
Martin Ohlin wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group
> level, then the individual shares within the group are not that
> important. If the individual share is important, then it should be
> controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.
The individual share within the group may not be important, but the
relative priority might be.
We have instances were we would like to express something like:
--these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and
should be guaranteed 3% of the system together
--within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the
most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the
other maintenance tasks
From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task
priority should be orthogonal.
First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then
within the group you pick the task with highest priority.
This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO).
Chris
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists