[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1157743424.19884.65.camel@linuxchandra>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:23:44 -0700
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, balbir@...ibm.com,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user
memory)
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:33 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think
> >> this can
> >
> > IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
> > infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
> > different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
> > guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.
> I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
> Don't we?
may be (I am not sure :), lets get it clarified.
> Guarantee may be one of
>
> 1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
> 2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
> 3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
> 4. anything else
I would say (1) with slight modification
"container will be able to touch _at least_ that number of pages"
Note that it is not only in the context of memory alone, it is generic
across resources.
For CPU it will be, "container will get _at least_ X ticks in Y seconds"
For number of tasks it will be, "container will get _at least_ X active
tasks at any point of time" and so on.
And as Dave pointed, sum of guarantees of all containers _can not_
exceed the total amount of that resource available at the system level.
>
> Let's decide what kind of a guarantee we want.
> >> be worked out as we make progress.
> >>
> >>> I agree with these requirements and lets move into this direction.
> >>> But moving so far can't be done without accepting:
> >>> 1. core functionality
> >>> 2. accounting
> >>>
> >> Some of the core functionality might be a limiting factor for the requirements.
> >> Lets agree on the requirements, I think its a great step forward and then
> >> build the core functionality with these requirements in mind.
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kirill
> >>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@...ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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