lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
    Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:

    >>> - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource
    >>> type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly
    >>> met thr limits.

    I just thought I'd weigh in on this. As far as our usage pattern is
    concerned, guarantees cannot be met via limits.

    I want to give "x" cpu to container X, "y" cpu to container Y, and "z"
    cpu to container Z.

    If these are percentages, x+y+z must be less than 100.

    However, if Y does not use its share of the cpu, I would like the
    leftover cpu time to be made available to X and Z, in a ratio based on
    their allocated weights.

    With limits, I don't see how I can get the ability for containers to
    make opportunistic use of cpu that becomes available.

    I can see that with things like memory this could become tricky (How do
    you free up memory that was allocated to X when Y decides that it really
    wants it after all?) but for CPU I think it's a valid scenario.

    Chris
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-01 22:21    [W:0.020 / U:1.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site