[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45068D81.5000606@openvz.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:35:45 +0400
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...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)
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:13:59PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>
>> If I set up 9 groups to have 100Mb limit then I have 100Mb assured (on
>> 1Gb node)
>> for the 10th one exactly. And I do not have to set up any guarantee as
>> it won't affect
>> anything. So what a guarantee parameter is needed for?
>>
>
> I presume you are talking of hard-limiting each group to 100 MB here. In
> which case, wont the 100MB (reserved for 10th group) be unutilized
> untill 10th group is started (it may never be started for that matter!).
>
> IMO it would be better to go and use that free 100 MB for reclaimable memory
> and give that up when 10th group is started.
>
Sure. I've talked about the unreclaimable memory.
Sorry, for not specifying it explicitly.
-
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