Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

[Avi Kivity]

Bharata B Rao wrote:
> 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
>   

Why would you allow specifying a lower bound for cpu usage (a 
guarantee), and upper bound (a limit), but not both?

> 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

That would be fine if it didn't idle the cpu despite there being demand 
and available cpu power.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/