Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:10:27 +0400 | From | Pavel Emelyanov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/8] CFS Hard limits - v2 |
| |
Balbir Singh wrote: > * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> [2009-09-30 17:36:29]: > >> Bharata B Rao wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is the v2 post of hard limits feature for CFS group scheduler. This >>> RFC post mainly adds runtime borrowing feature and has a new locking scheme >>> to protect CFS runtime related fields. >>> >>> It would be nice to have some comments on this set! >> I have a question I'd like to ask before diving into the code. >> Consider I'm a user, that has a 4CPUs box 2GHz each and I'd like >> to create a container with 2CPUs 1GHz each. Can I achieve this >> after your patches? > > I don't think the GHz makes any sense, consider CPUs with frequency > scaling. If I can scale from 1.6GHz to say 2.6GHz or 2GHz to 4GHz, > what does it mean for hard limit control? Hard limits define control > over existing bandwidth, anything else would be superficial and hard > hard to get right for both developers and users.
Two numbers for configuring limits make even less sense OTOH ;) By assigning 2GHz for 4GHz CPU I obviously want half of its power ;) Please, see my reply to vatsa@ in this thread.
| |