Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A nice CPU resource controller | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:14:19 +0000 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:01 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Martin Ohlin wrote: > > > Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group > > level, then the individual shares within the group are not that > > important. If the individual share is important, then it should be > > controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong. > > The individual share within the group may not be important, but the > relative priority might be. > > > We have instances were we would like to express something like: > > --these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and > should be guaranteed 3% of the system together > --within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the > most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the > other maintenance tasks
The latency issue is hard.
> From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task > priority should be orthogonal. > > First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then > within the group you pick the task with highest priority. > > This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO).
I'd really like to see what Kiril's suggestion looks like.
-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/
| |