Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:10:58 +0530 | | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) |
| |
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > 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.
Perhaps calling it as "limit" in confusing then (otoh it may go down well with Linus!). I perhaps agree we need to go with one for now (in the interest of making some progress), but we probably will come back to this at a later point. For ex, I chanced upon this document:
www.vmware.com/pdf/vmware_drs_wp.pdf
which explains how supporting a hard limit (in contrast to guar as we have been discussing) can be usefull sometimes.
-- Regards, vatsa - 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/
|  |