Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755358AbZFEFX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:23:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751032AbZFEFXT (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:23:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:59566 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750745AbZFEFXT (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:23:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4A28AB67.7040800@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:21:43 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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> <4A28A2AB.3060108@redhat.com> <20090605044946.GA11755@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090605051050.GB11755@balbir.in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20090605051050.GB11755@balbir.in.ibm.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: 1087 Lines: 25 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? >> > > OK, I see part of your concern, but I think we could do some > optimizations during design. For example if all groups have reached > their hard-limit and the system is idle, should we do start a new hard > limit interval and restart, so that idleness can be removed. Would > that be an acceptable design point? I think so. Given guarantees G1..Gn (0 <= Gi <= 1; sum(Gi) <= 1), and a cpu hog running in each group, how would the algorithm divide resources? -- 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/