Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932389AbWHaRFN (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:05:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932390AbWHaRFN (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:05:13 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:18093 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932389AbWHaRFL (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:05:11 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller From: Mike Galbraith To: Chris Friesen Cc: Martin Ohlin , Peter Williams , balbir@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <44F707F5.4090008@nortel.com> 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> <44F707F5.4090008@nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:14:19 +0000 Message-Id: <1157051660.6288.12.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 39 On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:01 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > 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 The latency issue is hard. > 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). I'd really like to see what Kiril's suggestion looks like. -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/