[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2B59C5.7060902@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:10:13 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
CC: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bharata@...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
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
>> I am selling virtual private servers. A 10% cpu share costs $x/month,
>> and I guarantee you'll get that 10%, or your money back. On the other
>> hand, I want to limit cpu usage to that 10% (maybe a little more) so
>> people don't buy 10% shares and use 100% on my underutilized servers.
>> If they want 100%, let them pay for 100%.
>>
>
> What about taking a page from the networking folks and specifying cpu
> like a networking SLA?
>
> Something like "group A is guaranteed X percent (or share) of the cpu,
> but it is allowed to burst up to Y percent for Z milliseconds"
>
> If a rule of this form was the first-class citizen, it would provide
> both guarantees, limits, and flexible behaviour.
>
I think you're introducing a new control (guarantees, limits, burst
limit), but I like it.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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