[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU controllers?
Sam Vilain wrote:
> 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.

Clearly we can't stuff everything into the kernel. What I'm asking is
what the important functionality is that people want to cover. I don't
know how you could possibly interpret it as anything else.

>> 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.

Well, virtualisation seems like it would get you a lot further than
containers for the same amount of work.

SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-18 09:20    [W:0.080 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site