lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/8] RSS controller task migration support
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:25:33 +0100 (CET)
> For a customer the main reason to use guarantee is to be sure that
> some pages of a job remain in memory when the system is low on free
> memory. This should be true even for a job in group/container A with

That actually doesn't appear a very useful definition.

There are two reasons for wanting memory guarantees

#1 To be sure a user can't toast the entire box but just their own
compartment (eg web hosting)

#2 To ensure all apps continue to make progress

The simple approach doesn't seem to work for either. There is a threshold
above which #1 and #2 are the same thing, below that trying to keep a few
pages in memory will thrash not make progress and will harm overall
behaviour thus failing to solve #1 or #2. At that point you have to
decide whether what you have is a misconfiguration or whether the system
should be prepared to do temporary cycling overcommits so containers take
it in turn to make progress when overcommitted.

> If the limit is a "hard limit" then we have implemented reservation and
> this is too strict.

Thats fundamentally a judgement based on your particular workload and
constraints. If I am web hosting then I don't generally care if my end
users compartment blows up under excess load, I care that the other 200
customers using the box don't suffer and all phone me to complain.

Alan
-
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: 2006-11-17 15:07    [W:0.042 / U:7.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site