lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
    > On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 14:43 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    > > > > Guarantee may be one of
    > > > >
    > > > > 1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
    > > > > 2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
    > > > > 3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
    > > > > 4. anything else
    > > >
    > > > I would say (1) with slight modification
    > > > "container will be able to touch _at least_ that number of pages"
    > > >
    > >
    > > Does this scheme support running of tasks outside of containers on the
    > > same platform where you have tasks running inside containers. If so
    > > then how will you ensure processes running out side any container will
    > > not leave less than the total guaranteed memory to different containers.
    > >
    >
    > There could be a default container which doesn't have any guarantee or
    > limit.

    First, I think it is critical that we allow processes to run outside of
    any container (unless we know for sure that the penalty of running a
    process inside a container is very very minimal).

    And anything running outside a container should be limited by default
    Linux settings.

    > When you create containers and assign guarantees to each of them
    > make sure that you leave some amount of resource unassigned.
    ^^^^^ This will force the "default" container
    with limits (indirectly). IMO, the whole guarantee feature gets defeated
    the moment you bring in this fuzziness.

    > That
    > unassigned resources can be used by the default container or can be used
    > by containers that want more than their guarantee (and less than their
    > limit). This is how CKRM/RG handles this issue.
    >
    >

    It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit
    should more be treated as something beyond which that resource
    consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed.

    -rohit

    -
    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: 2006-09-11 21:15    [W:4.108 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site