[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090605092733.GA27486@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:57:33 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...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>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, 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 01:53:15AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bharata B
> Rao<bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > - Hard limits can be used to provide guarantees.
> >
>
> This claim (and the subsequent long thread it generated on how limits
> can provide guarantees) confused me a bit.
>
> Why do we need limits to provide guarantees when we can already
> provide guarantees via shares?
shares design is proportional and hence it can't by itself provide
guarantees.
>
> Suppose 10 cgroups each want 10% of the machine's CPU. We can just
> give each cgroup an equal share, and they're guaranteed 10% if they
> try to use it; if they don't use it, other cgroups can get access to
> the idle cycles.
Now if 11th group with same shares comes in, then each group will now
get 9% of CPU and that 10% guarantee breaks.
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