Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751167AbWIHV2b (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:28:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751170AbWIHV2b (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:28:31 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:199 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751167AbWIHV23 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:28:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4501E077.3030702@watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:28:23 -0400 From: Shailabh Nagar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohitseth@google.com CC: Rik van Riel , Alan Cox , CKRM-Tech , Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Pavel Emelianov , Oleg Nesterov , devel@openvz.org, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) References: <44FD918A.7050501@sw.ru> <1157478392.3186.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157501878.11268.77.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1157729450.26324.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157735437.1214.32.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4501A7DD.8040305@watson.ibm.com> <1157750135.1214.94.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <1157750135.1214.94.camel@galaxy.corp.google.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: 1553 Lines: 40 Rohit Seth wrote: >> Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a >> single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially >> give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever >> be achieved). > > What exactly you mean by limited recharging? > Memory allocated (and hence charged) by a task belonging to one container being (re)charged to another container to which task moves. Can be done but at too high a cost so not worth it most of the time. > As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that > can be charged to any single container. And in this case moving a task > to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory > accounting pov. > >> But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will >> also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow >> middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task. >> > > That is not true. It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc. > You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap. > For cpu time & I/O bandwidth I disagree. Accounting to a multiplicity of containers/BC over time shouldn't be costly. Anyway, lets see how the implementation evolves. > -rohit - 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/