Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: balbir@in.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
       Martin Ohlin <martin.ohlin@control.lth.se>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <44F67EE2.5060605@in.ibm.com>
References: <44F5AB45.8030109@control.lth.se>
	 <661de9470608300841o757a8704te4402a7015b230c5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44F6365A.8010201@bigpond.net.au>  <44F67EE2.5060605@in.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:44:40 +0000
Message-Id: <1157021080.5770.88.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 903
Lines: 21

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:

> It's my belief that time and priorities are orthogonal. Nice does a good job
> of trying to mix the two,  but in the case of resource management it might not
> be such a good idea.

I don't think they're orthogonal.  If two tasks of identical priority
are contending for cpu, and you choose the one with more time on it's
group ticket, you have effectively modified priorities.

Regardless, nice sounded attractive to me at first, but it's flat wrong
to use a per task variable to store group scope information, so I have
to agree that nice isn't a good choice for group resource management.

	-Mike

-
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/