[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A291652.4090308@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:57:54 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: 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
Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> So the groups with guarantees get a priority boost. That's not a good
>> side effect.
>>
>
> That happens only in the presence of idle cycles when other groups [with or
> without guarantees] have nothing useful to do. So how would that matter
> since there is nothing else to run anyway ?
>
If there are three groups, each running a cpu hog, and they have (say)
guarantees of 10%, 10%, and 0%, then they should each get 33% of the
cpu, not biased towards the groups with the guarantee.
If I want to change the weights, I'll alter their priority.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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