[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090605113217.GA20786@in.ibm.com>
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