Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758732AbZFEI2D (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:28:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757419AbZFEIRy (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:17:54 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:37473 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756557AbZFEIRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:17:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:46:51 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao To: Avi Kivity Cc: Balbir Singh , 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 Message-ID: <20090605081651.GD3872@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <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> <4A28AB67.7040800@redhat.com> <20090605052755.GE11755@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090605053159.GB3872@in.ibm.com> <4A28B4CE.4010004@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A28B4CE.4010004@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1221 Lines: 31 On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Bharata B Rao wrote: >> >> But could there be client models where you are required to strictly >> adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing >> the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ? >> > > That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and > guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that > works when you advance the bandwidth period. > > I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something > derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they > can be used to provide SLAs). I agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about 1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and 2. not deriving guarantees from limits. Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think limiting should drive the guarantees. Regards, Bharata. -- 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/