[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830906050232n11aa30d8xfcda0a279a482f32@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 02:32:51 -0700
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Bharata B Rao<bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
So you're trying to guarantee 11 cgroups that they can each get 10% of
the CPU? That's called over-committing, and while there's nothing
wrong with doing that if you're confident that they'll not al need
their 10% at the same time, there's no way to *guarantee* them all
10%. You can guarantee them all 9% and hope the extra 1% is spare for
those that need it (over-committing), or you can guarantee 10 of them
10% and give the last one 0 shares.
How would you propose to guarantee 11 cgroups each 10% of the CPU
using hard limits?
Paul
--
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