Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932128AbWINX2X (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:28:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932129AbWINX2X (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:28:23 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:41188 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932128AbWINX2U (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Rik van Riel , vatsa@in.ibm.com, 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 In-Reply-To: <1158197232.20211.96.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> 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> <1158197232.20211.96.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:28:15 -0700 Message-Id: <1158276495.6357.18.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: 2074 Lines: 51 On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 18:27 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > 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 Let me make it clear, I am interested in resource management and not in containers. IMO, for resource management to work as expected (as is in other OSes), guarantee is needed. It will be a good idea to have it from start as it would affect the design of controllers. For example, instead of writing two controllers (one to control limit and another to provide guarantee), controller writers can provide both in a single controller. (OpenVZ has two parameters, oomguarpages and vmguarpages whose purpose is to provide some sort of guarantee using the barrier and/or limit available in BC) > 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 > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/