Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754895AbZFEFJn (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:09:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750788AbZFEFJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:09:33 -0400 Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]:41860 "EHLO zrtps0kp.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750763AbZFEFJc (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:09:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4A28A882.8070503@nortel.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:09:22 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: Avi Kivity , 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> <4A28A2AB.3060108@redhat.com> <20090605044946.GA11755@balbir.in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20090605044946.GA11755@balbir.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2009 05:09:29.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[CDD771B0:01C9E59B] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 938 Lines: 24 Balbir Singh wrote: > But then there is no other way to make a *guarantee*, guarantees come > at a cost of idling resources, no? Can you show me any other > combination that will provide the guarantee and without idling the > system for the specified guarantees? The example given was two 10% guaranteed groups and one best-effort group. Why would this require idling resources? If I have a hog in each group, the requirements would be met if the groups got 33, 33, and 33. (Or 10/10/80, for that matter.) If the second and third groups go idle, why not let the first group use 100% of the cpu? The only hard restriction is that the sum of the guarantees must be less than 100%. 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/