Re: A nice CPU resource controller

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:01 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Martin Ohlin wrote:
> 
> > Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group 
> > level, then the individual shares within the group are not that 
> > important. If the individual share is important, then it should be 
> > controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.
> 
> The individual share within the group may not be important, but the 
> relative priority might be.
> 
> 
> We have instances were we would like to express something like:
> 
> --these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and 
> should be guaranteed 3% of the system together
> 	--within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the 
> most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the 
> other maintenance tasks

The latency issue is hard.

>  From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task 
> priority should be orthogonal.
> 
> First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then 
> within the group you pick the task with highest priority.
> 
> This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO).

I'd really like to see what Kiril's suggestion looks like.

	-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/