Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Friday 28 April 2006 19:29, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:56 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:41:09 +0200
> >
> > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:26 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:59:49 +0200
> > > >
> > > > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > > You simply cannot ignore interactive tasks.  At the very least, you
> > > > > have to disallow requeue if the resource limit has been exceeded,
> > > > > otherwise, this patch set is non-functional.
> > > >
> > > > It can be easily implemented on top of the current code. Do you know
> > > > a good sample program that is judged as interactive but consumes lots
> > > > of cpu?
> > >
> > > X sometimes, Mozilla sometimes,... KDE konsole when scrolling,...
> > > anything that on average sleeps more than roughly 5% of it's slice can
> > > starve you to death either alone, or (worse) with peers.
> >
> > They are true interactive tasks, aren't they?
> > Oh! I should say "that is not interactive, but judged as interactive
> > and consumes lots of cpu".
>
> Why do you care?  There is only one thing that matters, and that is the
> fact that cpu can be used and remain utterly uncontrolled.  This renders
> your system non-functional for resource management.  Period.  All stop.

I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it isn't. If 
one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none it's unfair 
resource management.

-- 
-ck