lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
From
Date
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:14 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:10:31PM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit
> > should more be treated as something beyond which that resource
> > consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed.
>
> The big question is : are containers/RG allowed to use *upto* their
> limit always? In other words, will you typically setup limits such that
> sum of all limits = max resource capacity?
>

If a user is really interested in ensuring that all scheduled jobs (or
containers) get what they have asked for (guarantees) then making the
sum of all container limits equal to total system limit is the right
thing to do.

> If it is setup like that, then what you are considering as limit is
> actually guar no?
>
Right. And if we do it like this then it is up to sysadmin to configure
the thing right without adding additional logic in kernel.

-rohit


-
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: 2006-09-12 19:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans