Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030298AbWILRlx (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:41:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030299AbWILRlw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:41:52 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:48779 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030298AbWILRlv (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:41:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:10:58 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Rohit Seth Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , Alan Cox , CKRM-Tech , balbir@in.ibm.com, Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) Message-ID: <20060912174058.GA2932@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <44FEC7E4.7030708@sw.ru> <44FF1EE4.3060005@in.ibm.com> <1157580371.31893.36.camel@linuxchandra> <45011CAC.2040502@openvz.org> <1157743424.19884.65.camel@linuxchandra> <1157751834.1214.112.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1157999107.6029.7.camel@linuxchandra> <1158001831.12947.16.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <20060912104410.GA28444@in.ibm.com> <1158081752.20211.12.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1158081752.20211.12.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1772 Lines: 41 On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:14 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:10:31PM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit > > > should more be treated as something beyond which that resource > > > consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed. > > > > The big question is : are containers/RG allowed to use *upto* their > > limit always? In other words, will you typically setup limits such that > > sum of all limits = max resource capacity? > > > > If a user is really interested in ensuring that all scheduled jobs (or > containers) get what they have asked for (guarantees) then making the > sum of all container limits equal to total system limit is the right > thing to do. > > > If it is setup like that, then what you are considering as limit is > > actually guar no? > > > Right. And if we do it like this then it is up to sysadmin to configure > the thing right without adding additional logic in kernel. Perhaps calling it as "limit" in confusing then (otoh it may go down well with Linus!). I perhaps agree we need to go with one for now (in the interest of making some progress), but we probably will come back to this at a later point. For ex, I chanced upon this document: www.vmware.com/pdf/vmware_drs_wp.pdf which explains how supporting a hard limit (in contrast to guar as we have been discussing) can be usefull sometimes. -- Regards, vatsa - 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/