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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site