Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932172AbWHaQCJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:02:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932331AbWHaQCJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:02:09 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:36582 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932172AbWHaQCG (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:02:06 -0400 Message-ID: <44F707F5.4090008@nortel.com> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:01:57 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050427 Red Hat/1.7.7-1.1.3.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Ohlin CC: Mike Galbraith , Peter Williams , balbir@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller References: <44F5AB45.8030109@control.lth.se> <661de9470608300841o757a8704te4402a7015b230c5@mail.gmail.com> <44F6365A.8010201@bigpond.net.au> <1157007190.6035.14.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <1157010140.18561.23.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <44F6BB8A.7090001@control.lth.se> In-Reply-To: <44F6BB8A.7090001@control.lth.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2006 16:02:01.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB7C66A0:01C6CD16] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1273 Lines: 34 Martin Ohlin wrote: > Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group > level, then the individual shares within the group are not that > important. If the individual share is important, then it should be > controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong. The individual share within the group may not be important, but the relative priority might be. We have instances were we would like to express something like: --these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and should be guaranteed 3% of the system together --within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the other maintenance tasks From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task priority should be orthogonal. First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then within the group you pick the task with highest priority. This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO). Chris - 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/