lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 18 Jun 2006 18:40:09 +1200
FromSam Vilain <>
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU controllers?
Nick Piggin wrote:
>> The answer is quite simple, people who are consolidating systems and 
>> working with fewer, larger systems, want to mark processes, groups of 
>> processes or entire containers into CPU scheduling classes, then 
>> either fair balance between them, limit them or reserve them a 
>> portion of the CPU - depending on the user and what their 
>> requirements are. What is unclear about that?>>>> It is unclear whether we should have hard limits, or just nice like
> priority levels. Whether virtualisation (+/- containers) could be a
> good solution, etc.

Look, that was actually answered in the paragraph you're responding to. 
Once again, give me a set of possible requirements and I'll find you a 
set of users that have them. I am finding this sub-thread quite redundant.

> If you want to *completely* isolate N groups of users, surely you
> have to use virtualisation, unless you are willing to isolate memory
> management, pagecache, slab caches, network and disk IO, etc.

No, you have to use separate hardware. Try to claim otherwise and you're 
glossing over the corner cases.

Sam.

-
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: 2006-06-18 08:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2008