[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1158277364.6357.33.camel@linuxchandra>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:42:44 -0700
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: balbir@...ibm.com, Srivatsa <vatsa@...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 Thu, 2006-09-14 at 11:53 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
<snip>
> > What if I have 40 containers each with 2% guarantee ? what do we do
> > then ? and many other different combinations (what I gave was not the
> > _only_ scenario).
> >
> Then you need to solve a set of 40 equations. This sounds weird, but
> don't afraid - sets like these are solved lightly.
extrapolate that to a varying # of permutations and real time changes in
the system workload. Won't it be complex ?
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if we have the guarantee support instead ?
Why you do not like guarantee ? :)
<snip>
> >> Then how do you make sure that memory WILL be available when the group needs
> >> it without limiting the others in a proper way?
> >>
> >
> > You could limit others only if you _know_ somebody is not getting what
> > they are supposed to get (based on guarantee).
> >
> I don't understand your idea. Limit does _not_ imply anything - it's
> just a limit.
I didn't mean "limit" as defined in BC. I meant it in the generic sense.
IOW, if we have to provide guarantees then it would limit other RGs from
getting that (amount of guaranteed) resource.
> You may limit anything to anyone w/o bothering the consequences.
> Guarantee implies that the resource you guarantee will be available and
> this "will be" is something not that easy.
>
> So I repeat my question - how can you be sure that these X megabytes you
> guarantee to some group won't be used by others so that you won't be able
> to reclaim them?
It depends on how the memory controller is implemented. It could be
implemented in different ways:
- reclamation path will _not_ free pages belonging to a RG that is
below its guarantee.
- allocation from a "over guarantee" RG can succeed iff there is
memory after satisfying all guarantees (or will free pages from the
requesting RG before it will succeed).
- ...
BTW, my point is to have guarantees for _all_ resources not just memory.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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