[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4562.1255445366@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:49:26 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/8] CFS Hard limits - v2
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:39:17 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov said:
> 3) virtual cpu power in M/GHz - I don't agree with Balbir that
> this is difficult for administrator. This is better than two
> numbers and better that the percentage, since the amount of
> cpu time got by a container will not change after migrating to
> a more powerful CPU.
2Gz worth of throughput on an old Xeon is probably not the same as
half of a 4Gz i7.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists