Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750800AbWC2JNZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:13:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750753AbWC2JNZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:13:25 -0500 Received: from mail.sw-soft.com ([69.64.46.34]:27334 "EHLO mail.sw-soft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801AbWC2JNY (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:13:24 -0500 Message-ID: <442A4FAA.4010505@openvz.org> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:13:14 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050715) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: devel@openvz.org CC: Kir Kolyshkin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@vilain.net, Herbert Poetzl Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4428BB5C.3060803@tmr.com> <4428DB76.9040102@openvz.org> <1143583179.6325.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4429B789.4030209@sacred.ru> <1143588501.6325.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1143588501.6325.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Do-Not-Rej: Toldya Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1649 Lines: 36 Sam, >> Why do you think it can not be measured? It either can be, or it is too >> low to be measured reliably (a fraction of a per cent or so). > > Well, for instance the fair CPU scheduling overhead is so tiny it may as > well not be there in the VServer patch. It's just a per-vserver TBF > that feeds back into the priority (and hence timeslice length) of the > process. ie, you get "CPU tokens" which deplete as processes in your > vserver run and you either get a boost or a penalty depending on the > level of the tokens in the bucket. This doesn't provide guarantees, but > works well for many typical workloads. I wonder what is the value of it if it doesn't do guarantees or QoS? In our experiments with it we failed to observe any fairness. So I suppose the only goal of this is too make sure that maliscuios user want consume all the CPU power, right? > How does your fair scheduler work? Do you just keep a runqueue for each > vps? we keep num_online_cpus runqueues per VPS. Fairs scheduler is some kind of SFQ like algorithm which selects VPS to be scheduled, than standart linux scheduler selects a process in a VPS runqueues to run. > To be honest, I've never needed to determine whether its overhead is 1% > or 0.01%, it would just be a meaningless benchmark anyway :-). I know > it's "good enough for me". Sure! We feel the same, but people like numbers :) Thanks, Kirill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/