[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU hard limits
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bharata B
> Rao<> wrote:
>> - Hard limits can be used to provide guarantees.
> 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?
> Suppose 10 cgroups each want 10% of the machine's CPU. We can just
> give each cgroup an equal share, and they're guaranteed 10% if they
> try to use it; if they don't use it, other cgroups can get access to
> the idle cycles.
> Suppose cgroup A wants a guarantee of 50% and two others, B and C,
> want guarantees of 15% each; give A 50 shares and B and C 15 shares
> each. In this case, if they all run flat out they'll get 62%/19%/19%,
> which is within their SLA.
> That's not to say that hard limits can't be useful in their own right
> - e.g. for providing reproducible loadtesting conditions by
> controlling how much CPU a service can use during the load test. But I
> don't see why using them to implement guarantees is either necessary
> or desirable.
> (Unless I'm missing some crucial point ...)

How many shares does a cgroup with a 0% guarantee get?

Ideally, the scheduler would hand out cpu time according to weight and
demand, then clamp over-demand by a cgroup's limit and boost the share
to meet guarantees.

I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-05 15:07    [W:0.149 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site