Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:17:03 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] CPU controllers? |
| |
Sam Vilain wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >>> The answer is quite simple, people who are consolidating systems and >>> working with fewer, larger systems, want to mark processes, groups of >>> processes or entire containers into CPU scheduling classes, then >>> either fair balance between them, limit them or reserve them a >>> portion of the CPU - depending on the user and what their >>> requirements are. What is unclear about that? >>> >> >> It is unclear whether we should have hard limits, or just nice like >> priority levels. Whether virtualisation (+/- containers) could be a >> good solution, etc. > > > Look, that was actually answered in the paragraph you're responding to. > Once again, give me a set of possible requirements and I'll find you a > set of users that have them. I am finding this sub-thread quite redundant.
Clearly we can't stuff everything into the kernel. What I'm asking is what the important functionality is that people want to cover. I don't know how you could possibly interpret it as anything else.
> >> If you want to *completely* isolate N groups of users, surely you >> have to use virtualisation, unless you are willing to isolate memory >> management, pagecache, slab caches, network and disk IO, etc. > > > No, you have to use separate hardware. Try to claim otherwise and you're > glossing over the corner cases.
Well, virtualisation seems like it would get you a lot further than containers for the same amount of work.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |