lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU hard limits
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 04:02:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bharata B
>> Rao<bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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?
>

Shares cannot be used to provide guarantees. All they decide is what
propotion groups can get CPU time. (yes, shares is a bad name, weight
shows the intent better).

thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-05 16:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans