lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:02:17 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Cc: bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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>, 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: > 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? I think the interval over which we need guarantee matters here. Shares can generally provide guaranteed share of resource over longer (sometimes minutes) intervals. For high-priority bursty workloads, the latency in achieving guaranteed resource usage matters. By having hard-limits, we are "reserving" (potentially idle) slots where the high-priority group can run and claim its guaranteed share almost immediately. - vatsa -- 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