Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750832AbWH3QNt (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:13:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751106AbWH3QNs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:13:48 -0400 Received: from sperry-01.control.lth.se ([130.235.83.188]:59575 "EHLO sperry-01.control.lth.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750832AbWH3QNs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:13:48 -0400 Message-ID: <44F5B91C.1060209@control.lth.se> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:13:16 +0200 From: Martin Ohlin User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: balbir@in.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller References: <44F5AB45.8030109@control.lth.se> <661de9470608300841o757a8704te4402a7015b230c5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <661de9470608300841o757a8704te4402a7015b230c5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1702 Lines: 35 Balbir Singh wrote: > The CKRM e-series is a PID based CPU Controller. It did a good job of > controlling and smoothing out the load (and variations) and even > worked with groups. But it achieved all this through some amount of > complexity. How do you plan to extend the idea to groups? Do you have > any code that we can look at? I would say that my controller so far is very simple, probably too simple. I have no detailed plan yet about how to incorporate groups of tasks, only small ideas that I would like to think a little more on before I say something embarrasing. The important code-parts are in the thesis, and I must say that the code is in no way finished, but most of it can be found at: http://www.control.lth.se/user/martin.ohlin/linux/sampler.c > I do not understand controlling the nice value? Most cpu control the > bandwidth/time - are there any advantages to controlling the nice > value? How does this interplay with dynamic priorities that the > scheduler currently maintains? There is a relationship between the nice value and the achieved bandwidth/time. Therefore it was possible that the nice value could be used to control the bandwidth/time. I wanted to know if it was possible to use it, and it was. As to the dynamic priorities, I do not change them, but as I do change the nice value and the dynamic priorities are relative to that, then you may say that I do change them... Anyway, it seems to work. /Martin - 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/