Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:06:24 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] CPU controllers? |
| |
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 06:48:17PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: >> >>> - Do we need mechanisms to control CPU usage of tasks, further to >>> what >>> already exists (like nice)? IMO yes. >> >>Can we get back to the question of need? And from there, work out what >>features are wanted. >> >>IMHO, having containers try to virtualise all resources (memory, pagecache, >>slab cache, CPU, disk/network IO...) seems insane: we may just as well use >>virtualisation. >> >>So, from my POV, I would like to be convinced of the need for this first. >>I would really love to be able to keep core kernel simple and fast even if >>it means edge cases might need to use a slightly different solution. > > > I think a proportional-share scheduler (which is what a CPU controller > may provide) has non-container uses also. Do you think nice (or sched policy) > is enough to, say, provide guaranteed CPU usage for applications or limit > their CPU usage? Moreover it is more flexible if guarantee/limit can be > specified for a group of tasks, rather than individual tasks even in > non-container scenarios (like limiting CPU usage of all web-server > tasks togther or for limiting CPU usage of make -j command). >
Oh, I'm sure there are lots of things we *could* do that we currently can't.
What I want to establish first is: what exact functionality is required, why, and by whom. Only then can we sanely discuss the fitness of solutions and propose alternatives, and decide whether to merge.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.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/
| |