Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751318AbWINB2Q@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751318AbWINB2Q (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:28:16 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751325AbWINB2P
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:28:15 -0400
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:8166 "EHLO
	smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751318AbWINB2P (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:28:15 -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=nCA5uSKKdCQyLdpfccIC/Tcf0LOHlGmmBO4Wlb8suoJHDXvdgp0B9Wl6Jl5Fd3G8G
	djMrQIv10+1KUk0T0HUkw==
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource
	beancounters	(v4)	(added	user	memory)
From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@google.com>
Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com
To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, vatsa@in.ibm.com,
       CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>, balbir@in.ibm.com,
       Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrey Savochkin <saw@sw.ru>, devel@openvz.org,
       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>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
In-Reply-To: <1158186247.18927.11.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>
	 <1158108203.20211.52.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
	 <1158109991.4800.43.camel@linuxchandra>
	 <1158111218.20211.69.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
	 <1158186247.18927.11.camel@linuxchandra>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Google Inc
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:27:12 -0700
Message-Id: <1158197232.20211.96.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: 2171
Lines: 51

On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 15:24 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:33 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:13 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:43 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, dynamic resource adjustments should be available. But, you can't
> > > expect the sysadmin to sit around and keep tweaking the limits so as to
> > > achieve the QoS he wants. (Even if you have an application sitting and
> > > doing it, as I pointed in other email it may not be possible for
> > > different scenarios).
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > As said earlier, if strict QoS is desired then system should be
> > appropriately partitioned so that the sum of limits doesn't exceed
> > physical limit (that is cost of QoS).  Let us first get at least that
> > much settled on and accepted in mainline before getting into these
> > esoteric features.
> > 
> 
> esoteric ?! Please look at the different operating system that provide
> resource management and other resource management capability providers.
> All of them have both guarantees and limits (they might call them
> differently).
> 

Is this among the very first features you would like (to get absolutely
right) before containers get in mm tree?  Or is this something that can
wait after the minimal infrastructure is in Andrew's tree and the code
gets wider testing...And above all we have agreed upon user interface.

-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/