Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752440AbWKAVSR (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:18:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752441AbWKAVSR (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:18:17 -0500 Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]:52628 "EHLO zrtps0kp.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752440AbWKAVSP (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:18:15 -0500 Message-ID: <45490F0D.7000804@nortel.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:18:05 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050427 Red Hat/1.7.7-1.1.3.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vatsa@in.ibm.com CC: Paul Menage , dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610300251w1f4e0a70ka1d64b15d8da2b77@mail.gmail.com> <20061101173356.GA18182@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20061101173356.GA18182@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2006 21:18:10.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B58C5D0:01C6FDFB] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1221 Lines: 31 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: >>> - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource >>> type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly >>> met thr limits. I just thought I'd weigh in on this. As far as our usage pattern is concerned, guarantees cannot be met via limits. I want to give "x" cpu to container X, "y" cpu to container Y, and "z" cpu to container Z. If these are percentages, x+y+z must be less than 100. However, if Y does not use its share of the cpu, I would like the leftover cpu time to be made available to X and Z, in a ratio based on their allocated weights. With limits, I don't see how I can get the ability for containers to make opportunistic use of cpu that becomes available. I can see that with things like memory this could become tricky (How do you free up memory that was allocated to X when Y decides that it really wants it after all?) but for CPU I think it's a valid scenario. Chris - 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/