[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A28A882.8070503@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:09:22 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits
Balbir Singh wrote:
> But then there is no other way to make a *guarantee*, guarantees come
> at a cost of idling resources, no? Can you show me any other
> combination that will provide the guarantee and without idling the
> system for the specified guarantees?
The example given was two 10% guaranteed groups and one best-effort
group. Why would this require idling resources?
If I have a hog in each group, the requirements would be met if the
groups got 33, 33, and 33. (Or 10/10/80, for that matter.) If the
second and third groups go idle, why not let the first group use 100% of
the cpu?
The only hard restriction is that the sum of the guarantees must be less
than 100%.
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