Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:49:08 +0300 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction |
| |
>>>I did this to the scheduler last year - see >>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111404726721747&w=2 >> >>It's really interesting! >>Have you tested fairness of your solution and it's performance overhead? > > > What do you mean by fairness, exactly? I mean how CPU time is distributed not only in the case of CPU hogs. For example, when 2 tasks do cyclic 1 byte transfer via pipe. one of them is awake, while another goes to sleep. If both are in one container, will they behave like a CPU hog?
> As for its overhead, I just got it working inside UML. I tried it on > x86_64, but something was wrong with the low-level switching stuff, > and the machine hung whenever a guest scheduler process tried to run. > So, I never got any real measurements. It's a pity... :( We have fair CPU scheduler in OpenVZ project, so it's quite an interesting approach for us.
Kirill
- 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/
| |