[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090605081651.GD3872@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:46:51 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <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 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Bharata B Rao wrote:
>>
>> But could there be client models where you are required to strictly
>> adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing
>> the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ?
>>
>
> That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and
> guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that
> works when you advance the bandwidth period.
>
> I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something
> derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they
> can be used to provide SLAs).
I agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about
1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and
2. not deriving guarantees from limits.
Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think
limiting should drive the guarantees.
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