[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45490F0D.7000804@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:18:05 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, dev@...nvz.org,
sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, matthltc@...ibm.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource
>>> type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly
>>> met thr limits.
I just thought I'd weigh in on this. As far as our usage pattern is
concerned, guarantees cannot be met via limits.
I want to give "x" cpu to container X, "y" cpu to container Y, and "z"
cpu to container Z.
If these are percentages, x+y+z must be less than 100.
However, if Y does not use its share of the cpu, I would like the
leftover cpu time to be made available to X and Z, in a ratio based on
their allocated weights.
With limits, I don't see how I can get the ability for containers to
make opportunistic use of cpu that becomes available.
I can see that with things like memory this could become tricky (How do
you free up memory that was allocated to X when Y decides that it really
wants it after all?) but for CPU I think it's a valid scenario.
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