Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:35:54 +0200 | From | Martin Ohlin <> | Subject | Re: A nice CPU resource controller |
| |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:53 +0000, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: >> >>> But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the >>> dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary >>> purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU >>> resources based on external considerations. >> I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based >> on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand. > > When extended to groups, I see your point. The admin would lose his > ability to apportion bandwidth _within_ the group because he's already > turned his only knob. That is going to be just as much of a problem for > other methods though, and is just a question of how much complexity you > want to pay to achieve fine grained control.
I do not see the problem. Let's say I create a group of three tasks and give it 50% of the CPU bandwidth (perhaps by using the same nice value for all the tasks in this group). If I then want to apportion the bandwidth within the group as you say, then the same thing can be done by treating them as individual tasks.
Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group level, then the individual shares within the group are not that important. If the individual share is important, then it should be controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.
/Martin - 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/
| |