[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU hard limits
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:53:15AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> This claim (and the subsequent long thread it generated on how limits
> can provide guarantees) confused me a bit.
> Why do we need limits to provide guarantees when we can already
> provide guarantees via shares?

I think the interval over which we need guarantee matters here. Shares
can generally provide guaranteed share of resource over longer (sometimes
minutes) intervals. For high-priority bursty workloads, the latency in
achieving guaranteed resource usage matters. By having hard-limits, we are
"reserving" (potentially idle) slots where the high-priority group can run and
claim its guaranteed share almost immediately.

- vatsa

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-05 13:35    [W:0.122 / U:9.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site