[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
Rohit Seth wrote:

>> Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a
>> single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially
>> give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever
>> be achieved).
> What exactly you mean by limited recharging?

Memory allocated (and hence charged) by a task belonging to one container
being (re)charged to another container to which task moves. Can be done but at
too high a cost so not worth it most of the time.

> As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that
> can be charged to any single container. And in this case moving a task
> to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory
> accounting pov.
>> But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will
>> also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow
>> middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task.
> That is not true. It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc.
> You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap.
For cpu time & I/O bandwidth I disagree. Accounting to a multiplicity of
containers/BC over time shouldn't be costly.

Anyway, lets see how the implementation evolves.

> -rohit

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-08 23:31    [W:0.076 / U:2.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site