Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751232AbWIMWbN@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751232AbWIMWbN (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:31:13 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751233AbWIMWbN
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:31:13 -0400
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:50363 "EHLO
	e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751232AbWIMWbM
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:31:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added	user
	memory)
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, Srivatsa <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
       Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@sw.ru>,
       Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@mail.ru>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>, devel@openvz.org
In-Reply-To: <4507BC11.6080203@openvz.org>
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>
	 <1157730221.26324.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <4501B5F0.9050802@in.ibm.com> <450508BB.7020609@openvz.org>
	 <4505161E.1040401@in.ibm.com> <45051AC7.2000607@openvz.org>
	 <1158000590.6029.33.camel@linuxchandra> <45069072.4010007@openvz.org>
	 <1158105488.4800.23.camel@linuxchandra>  <4507BC11.6080203@openvz.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: IBM
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:31:04 -0700
Message-Id: <1158186664.18927.17.camel@linuxchandra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3226
Lines: 83

On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 12:06 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 14:48 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> > <snip>
> >   
> >>> I do not think it is that simple since
> >>>  - there is typically more than one class I want to set guarantee to
> >>>  - I will not able to use both limit and guarantee
> >>>  - Implementation will not be work-conserving.
> >>>
> >>> Also, How would you configure the following in your model ?
> >>>
> >>> 5 classes: Class A(10, 40), Class B(20, 100), Class C (30, 100), Class D
> >>> (5, 100), Class E(15, 50); (class_name(guarantee, limit))
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> What's the total memory amount on the node? Without it it's hard to make
> >> any
> >> guarantee.
> >>     
> >
> > I wrote the example treating them as %, so 100 would be the total amount
> > of memory.
> >   
> OK. Then limiting must be done this way (unreclaimable limit/total limit)
> A (15/40)
> B (25/100)
> C (35/100)
> D (10/100)
> E (20/50)
> In this case each group will receive it's guarantee for sure.
> 
> E.g. even if A, B, E and D will eat all it's unreclaimable memory then
> we'll have
> 100 - 15 - 25 - 20 - 10 = 30% of memory left (maybe after reclaiming) which
> is perfectly enough for C's guarantee.

How did you arrive at the +5 number ?

What if I have 40 containers each with 2% guarantee ? what do we do
then ? and many other different combinations (what I gave was not the
_only_ scenario).

> >   
> >>> "Limit only" approach works for DoS prevention. But for providing QoS
> >>> you would need guarantee.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> You may not provide guarantee on physycal resource for a particular group
> >> without limiting its usage by other groups. That's my major idea.
> >>     
> >
> > I agree with that, but the other way around (i.e provide guarantee for
> > everyone by imposing limits on everyone) is what I am saying is not
> > possible.
> Then how do you make sure that memory WILL be available when the group needs
> it without limiting the others in a proper way?

You could limit others only if you _know_ somebody is not getting what
they are supposed to get (based on guarantee).

> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/