[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.13-rc3-mm1 (ckrm)
    > I suspect that the main problem is that this patch is not a mainstream
    > kernel feature that will gain multiple uses, but rather provides
    > support for a specific vendor middleware product used by that
    > vendor and a few closely allied vendors. If it were smaller or
    > less intrusive, such as a driver, this would not be a big problem.
    > That's not the case.

    yes, that's the crux. CKRM is all about resolving conflicting resource
    demands in a multi-user, multi-server, multi-purpose machine. this is a
    huge undertaking, and I'd argue that it's completely inappropriate for
    *most* servers. that is, computers are generally so damn cheap that
    the clear trend is towards dedicating a machine to a specific purpose,
    rather than running eg, shell/MUA/MTA/FS/DB/etc all on a single machine.

    this is *directly* in conflict with certain prominent products, such as
    the Altix and various less-prominent Linux-based mainframes. they're all
    about partitioning/virtualization - the big-iron aesthetic of splitting up
    a single machine. note that it's not just about "big", since cluster-based
    approaches can clearly scale far past big-iron, and are in effect statically
    partitioned. yes, buying a hideously expensive single box, and then chopping
    it into little pieces is more than a little bizarre, and is mainly based
    on a couple assumptions:

    - that clusters are hard. really, they aren't. they are not
    necessarily higher-maintenance, can be far more robust, usually
    do cost less. just about the only bad thing about clusters is
    that they tend to be somewhat larger in size.

    - that partitioning actually makes sense. the appeal is that if
    you have a partition to yourself, you can only hurt yourself.
    but it also follows that burstiness in resource demand cannot be
    overlapped without either constantly tuning the partitions or
    infringing on the guarantee.

    CKRM is one of those things that could be done to Linux, and will benefit a
    few, but which will almost certainly hurt *most* of the community.

    let me say that the CKRM design is actually quite good. the issue is whether
    the extensive hooks it requires can be done (at all) in a way which does
    not disporportionately hurt maintainability or efficiency.

    CKRM requires hooks into every resource-allocation decision fastpath:
    - if CKRM is not CONFIG, the only overhead is software maintenance.
    - if CKRM is CONFIG but not loaded, the overhead is a pointer check.
    - if CKRM is CONFIG and loaded, the overhead is a pointer check
    and a nontrivial callback.

    but really, this is only for CKRM-enforced limits. CKRM really wants to
    change behavior in a more "weighted" way, not just causing an
    allocation/fork/packet to fail. a really meaningful CKRM needs to
    be tightly integrated into each resource manager - effecting each scheduler
    (process, memory, IO, net). I don't really see how full-on CKRM can be
    compiled out, unless these schedulers are made fully pluggable.

    finally, I observe that pluggable, class-based resource _limits_ could
    probably be done without callbacks and potentially with low overhead.
    but mere limits doesn't meet CKRM's goal of flexible, wide-spread resource
    partitioning within a large, shared machine.

    regards, mark hahn.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-17 21:06    [W:0.035 / U:42.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site