Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754294AbZFEEqX (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:46:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750783AbZFEEqO (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:46:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44727 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750745AbZFEEqN (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:46:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4A28A2AB.3060108@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:44:27 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Balbir Singh CC: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dhaval Giani , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Gautham R Shenoy , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Pavel Emelyanov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , Herbert Poetzl Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits References: <20090604053649.GA3701@in.ibm.com> <4A27BBCA.5020606@redhat.com> <20090605030309.GA3872@in.ibm.com> <4A28921C.6010802@redhat.com> <661de9470906042137u603e2997n80c270bf7f6191ad@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <661de9470906042137u603e2997n80c270bf7f6191ad@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2344 Lines: 64 Balbir Singh wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Bharata B Rao wrote: >> >>>> Another way is to place the 8 groups in a container group, and limit >>>> that to 80%. But that doesn't work if I want to provide guarantees to >>>> several groups. >>>> >>>> >>> Hmm why not ? Reduce the guarantee of the container group and provide >>> the same to additional groups ? >>> >>> >> This method produces suboptimal results: >> >> $ cgroup-limits 10 10 0 >> [50.0, 50.0, 40.0] >> >> I want to provide two 10% guaranteed groups and one best-effort group. >> Using the limits method, no group can now use more than 50% of the >> resources. However, having the first group use 90% of the resources does >> not violate any guarantees, but it not allowed by the solution. >> >> > > How, it works out fine in my calculation > > 50 + 40 for G2 and G3, make sure that G1 gets 10%, since others are > limited to 90% > 50 + 40 for G1 and G3, make sure that G2 gets 10%, since others are > limited to 90% > 50 + 50 for G1 and G2, make sure that G3 gets 0%, since others are > limited to 100% > It's fine in that it satisfies the guarantees, but it is deeply suboptimal. If I ran a cpu hog in the first group, while the other two were idle, it would be limited to 50% cpu. On the other hand, if it consumed all 100% cpu it would still satisfy the guarantees (as the other groups are idle). The result is that in such a situation, wall clock time would double even though cpu resources are available. > Now if we really have zeros, I would recommend using > > cgroup-limits 10 10 and you'll see that you'll get 90, 90 as output. > > Adding zeros to the calcuation is not recommended. Does that help? What do you mean, it is not recommended? I have two groups which need at least 10% and one which does not need any guarantee, how do I express it? In any case, changing the zero to 1% does not materially change the results. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- 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/