[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A28B539.3050001@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:03:37 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: 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:
>> I think so. Given guarantees G1..Gn (0 <= Gi <= 1; sum(Gi) <= 1), and a
>> cpu hog running in each group, how would the algorithm divide resources?
>>
>>
>
> As per the matrix calculation, but as soon as we reach an idle point,
> we redistribute the b/w and start a new quantum so to speak, where all
> groups are charged up to their hard limits.
>
> For your question, if there is a CPU hog running, it would be as per
> the matrix calculation, since the system has no idle point during the
> bandwidth period.
>
So the groups with guarantees get a priority boost. That's not a good
side effect.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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