Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754648AbZI3PK3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:10:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754593AbZI3PK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:10:28 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:6382 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754265AbZI3PK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:10:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC374E3.9000308@openvz.org> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:10:27 +0400 From: Pavel Emelyanov 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 , Herbert Poetzl , Avi Kivity , Chris Friesen , Paul Menage , Mike Waychison Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/8] CFS Hard limits - v2 References: <20090930124919.GA19951@in.ibm.com> <4AC35EDD.1080902@openvz.org> <20090930143820.GG3071@balbir.in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20090930143820.GG3071@balbir.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1365 Lines: 30 Balbir Singh wrote: > * Pavel Emelyanov [2009-09-30 17:36:29]: > >> Bharata B Rao wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is the v2 post of hard limits feature for CFS group scheduler. This >>> RFC post mainly adds runtime borrowing feature and has a new locking scheme >>> to protect CFS runtime related fields. >>> >>> It would be nice to have some comments on this set! >> I have a question I'd like to ask before diving into the code. >> Consider I'm a user, that has a 4CPUs box 2GHz each and I'd like >> to create a container with 2CPUs 1GHz each. Can I achieve this >> after your patches? > > I don't think the GHz makes any sense, consider CPUs with frequency > scaling. If I can scale from 1.6GHz to say 2.6GHz or 2GHz to 4GHz, > what does it mean for hard limit control? Hard limits define control > over existing bandwidth, anything else would be superficial and hard > hard to get right for both developers and users. Two numbers for configuring limits make even less sense OTOH ;) By assigning 2GHz for 4GHz CPU I obviously want half of its power ;) Please, see my reply to vatsa@ in this thread. -- 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/