[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A292F3F.8010402@nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:44:15 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, 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
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> 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.
Why do you need to "reserve" it though? By definition, if it's
high-priority then it should be able to interrupt the currently running
task.
Chris
--
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