lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: A nice CPU resource controller
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-31 19:07    [W:0.070 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site