[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090605063243.GC3872@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:02:43 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: balbir@...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
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:03:37AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.
That happens only in the presence of idle cycles when other groups [with or
without guarantees] have nothing useful to do. So how would that matter
since there is nothing else to run anyway ?
Regards,
Bharata.
--
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