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    [W:0.026 / U:29.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site