Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] RSS controller task migration support | Date | Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:01:50 +0100 (CET) | From | (Patrick.Le-Dot) |
| |
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:04:08 +0530 > ... > I am not against guarantees, but > > Consider the following scenario, let's say we implement guarantees > > 1. If we account for kernel resources, how do you provide guarantees > when you have non-reclaimable resources?
First, the current patch is based only on pages available in the struct mm. I doubt that these pages are "non-reclaimable"...
And guarantee should be ignored just because some kernel resources are marked "non-reclaimable" ?
> 2. If a customer runs a system with swap turned off (which is quite > common),
quite common, really ?
> then anonymous memory becomes irreclaimable. If a group > takes more than it's fair share (exceeds its guarantee), you > have scenario similar to 1 above.
That seems to be just a subset of the "guarantee+limit" model : if guarantee is not useful for you, don't use it.
I'm not saying that guarantee should be a magic piece of code working for everybody.
But we have to propose something for the customers who ask for a guarantee (ie using a system with swap turned on like me and this is quite common:-)
Patrick
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Patrick Le Dot mailto: P@trick.Le-Dot@bull.net Centre UNIX de BULL SAS Phone : +33 4 76 29 73 20 1, Rue de Provence BP 208 Fax : +33 4 76 29 76 00 38130 ECHIROLLES Cedex FRANCE Bull, Architect of an Open World TM www.bull.com - 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/
| |