[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU hard limits
Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Bharata B Rao wrote:
>>> But could there be client models where you are required to strictly
>>> adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing
>>> the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ?
>> That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and
>> guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that
>> works when you advance the bandwidth period.
>> I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something
>> derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they
>> can be used to provide SLAs).
> I agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about
> 1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and

Why would you allow specifying a lower bound for cpu usage (a
guarantee), and upper bound (a limit), but not both?

> 2. not deriving guarantees from limits.
> Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think
> limiting should drive the guarantees

That would be fine if it didn't idle the cpu despite there being demand
and available cpu power.

Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-07 08:09    [W:0.108 / U:22.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site