Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030440AbWIMAoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:44:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030442AbWIMAoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:44:14 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:10863 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030440AbWIMAoN (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:44:13 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=IJjZZD4LUwgobSlldt026sJvCZ9GeDmqSGoX2UqTPRo/INZzliS8utMu6wqkmQ/ty hLWP2qvO8bf0MztuKZ0Fg== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , CKRM-Tech , balbir@in.ibm.com, Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , Alan Cox , Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <1158105732.4800.26.camel@linuxchandra> References: <44FD918A.7050501@sw.ru> <44FDAB81.5050608@in.ibm.com> <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> <1158105732.4800.26.camel@linuxchandra> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:43:23 -0700 Message-Id: <1158108203.20211.52.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1822 Lines: 40 On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:02 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:22 -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. > > It won't be a complete solution, as the user won't be able to > - set both guarantee and limit for a resource group > - use limit on some and guarantee on some > - optimize the usage of available resources I think, if we have some of the dynamic resource limit adjustments possible then some of the above functionality could be achieved. And I think that could be a good start point. -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/