[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
    On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:55 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:

    > >>If you have a single container controlling all the resources, then
    > >>placing kjournald into CPU container would require setting
    > >>it's memory limits etc. And kjournald will start to be accounted separately,
    > >
    > >
    > > Not necessarily. You could just set the CPU shares of the group and
    > > leave the other resources as don't care.
    > don't care IMHO doesn't mean "accounted and limited as container X".
    > it sounds like "no limits" for me.

    Yes. But, it would provide the same functionality that you want (i.e
    limit only CPU and no other resources).

    > >>while my intention is kjournald to be accounted as the host system.
    > >>I only want to _guarentee_ some CPU to it.
    > > I do not see any _guarantee_ support, only barrier(soft limit) and
    > > limit. May be I overlooked. Can you tell me how guarantee is achieved
    > > with UBC.
    > we just provide additional parameters like oomguarpages, where barrier
    > is a guarantee.

    I take it that you are suggesting that the controller can use barrier as

    I don't see how it will work. charge_beancounter() returns -ENOMEM even
    when the group is over its barrier (when queried with strict ==

    I have to see the oomguarpatches patches for understanding this, I
    > Kirill

    Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
    - | may get it.

    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: 2006-08-21 23:07    [W:0.024 / U:6.660 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site