Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] CPU controllers? | | From | Mike Galbraith <> | | Date | Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:20:42 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 12:21 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > Scheduling contexts do sound useful. They're easily defeated though, as > > evolution mail demonstrates to me every time it's GUI hangs and I see > > that a nice 19 find is running, eating very little CPU, but effectively > > DoSing evolution nonetheless (journal). I wonder how often people who > > tried to distribute CPU would likewise be stymied by other resources. > > We do a lot with diskless blades. Basically cpu(s), memory, and network > ports. > > For this case, cpu, memory, and network controllers are sufficient. > Even just cpu gets you a long way, since mostly we're not IO-intensive > and we generally have a pretty good idea of memory consumption.
Sure. Some conflicts can be avoided with foreknowledge, and those conflicts that do occur don't necessarily make limits worthless or unmanageable. Nonetheless, I can imagine them becoming problematic.
-Mike
- 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/
|  |