Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

[Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:51:18AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Dhaval Giani<dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > Now if 11th group with same shares comes in, then each group will now
> >> > get 9% of CPU and that 10% guarantee breaks.
> >>
> >> So you're trying to guarantee 11 cgroups that they can each get 10% of
> >> the CPU? That's called over-committing, and while there's nothing
> >> wrong with doing that if you're confident that they'll not all need
> >> their 10% at the same time, there's no way to *guarantee* them all
> >> 10%. You can guarantee them all 9% and hope the extra 1% is spare for
> >> those that need it (over-committing), or you can guarantee 10 of them
> >> 10% and give the last one 0 shares.
> >>
> >> How would you propose to guarantee 11 cgroups each 10% of the CPU
> >> using hard limits?
> >>
> >
> > You cannot guarantee 10% to 11 groups on any system (unless I am missing
> > something). The sum of guarantees cannot exceed 100%.
> 
> That's exactly my point. I was trying to counter Bharata's statement, which was:
> 
> > > Now if 11th group with same shares comes in, then each group will now
> > > get 9% of CPU and that 10% guarantee breaks.
> 
> which seemed to be implying that this was a drawback of using shares
> to implement guarantees.
> 

OK :). Glad to see I did not get it wrong.

I think we are focusing on the wrong use case here. Guarantees is just a
useful side-effect we get by using hard limits. I think the more
important use case is where the provider wants to limit the amount of
time a user gets (such as in a cloud).

Maybe we should direct our attention in solving that problem? :)

thanks,
-- 
regards,
Dhaval