[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060913121525.GC7543@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:45:25 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: sekharan@...ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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)
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:06:41PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> OK. Then limiting must be done this way (unreclaimable limit/total limit)
> A (15/40)
> B (25/100)
> C (35/100)
s/35/30?
Also the different b/n total and unreclaimable limits goes towards
limiting reclaimable memory i suppose? And 1st limit seems to be a
hard-limit while the 2nd one is soft?
> D (10/100)
> E (20/50)
> In this case each group will receive it's guarantee for sure.
>
> E.g. even if A, B, E and D will eat all it's unreclaimable memory then
> we'll have
> 100 - 15 - 25 - 20 - 10 = 30% of memory left (maybe after reclaiming) which
> is perfectly enough for C's guarantee.
I agree by carefully choosing these limits, we can provide some sort of
QoS, which is a good step to begin with.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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