Re: [RFC] CPU controllers?

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 12:21 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > Scheduling contexts do sound useful.  They're easily defeated though, as
> > evolution mail demonstrates to me every time it's GUI hangs and I see
> > that a nice 19 find is running, eating very little CPU, but effectively
> > DoSing evolution nonetheless (journal).  I wonder how often people who
> > tried to distribute CPU would likewise be stymied by other resources.
> 
> We do a lot with diskless blades.  Basically cpu(s), memory, and network 
> ports.
> 
> For this case, cpu, memory, and network controllers are sufficient. 
> Even just cpu gets you a long way, since mostly we're not IO-intensive 
> and we generally have a pretty good idea of memory consumption.

Sure.  Some conflicts can be avoided with foreknowledge, and those
conflicts that do occur don't necessarily make limits worthless or
unmanageable.  Nonetheless, I can imagine them becoming problematic.

	-Mike

-
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/