lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/5] SUBCPUSETS: a resource control functionality using CPUSETS
From
Date
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 18:44 +0530, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
> Interesting implementation of resource controls. Cross posting this

I second this :)

Browsed a little through the docs/patches... seems to fit very well into
a resource management solution (hint CKRM :) than CPUSET (resource
isolation).

I can see the usefulness of resource management inside CPUSET. We have
had discussions earlier(in lkml and lse-tech) about how CKRM can play
inside a CPUSET, and this plays directly into that, providing resource
management inside a CPUSET.

The parameters used, guarantee and limit, fits very well into CKRM's
shares usage model.

Takahiro-san, How much effort you think will be needed to make this work
under CKRM. thanks.

> to ckrm-tech as well. I am sure CKRM folks have something to say...
>
> Any thoughts about how you want to add more resource control features
> on top of/in addition to this setup. (Such as memory etc)
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:23:23AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > I'm guessing you do not want such cpusets (the parents of subcpusets)
> > to overlap, because if they did, it would seem to confuse the meaning
> > of getting a fixed proportion of available cpu and memory resources. I
> > was a little surprised not to see any additional checks that
> > cpu_exclusive and mem_exclusive must be set true in these cpusets, to
> > insure non- overlapping cpusets.
>
> I agree with Paul here. You would want to build your controllers
> on top of exclusive cpusets to keep things sane.
>
> > On the other hand, Dinakar had more work to do than you might, because
> > he needed a complete covering (so had to round up cpus in non exclusive
> > cpusets to form more covering elements). From what I can tell, you
> > don't need a complete covering - it seems fine if some cpus are not
> > managed by this resource control function.
>
>
> I think it makes more sense to add this functionality directly as part
> of the existing cpusets instead of creating further leaf cpusets (or subcpusets
> as you call it) where we can specify resource control parameters. I think that
> approach would be much more intuitive and simple to work with rather than
> what you have currently.
>
> -Dinakar
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
>
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
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: 2005-09-09 00:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans