From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbWFBNSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:18:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751405AbWFBNSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:18:53 -0400 Received: from omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.93.156]:54999 "EHLO omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751416AbWFBNSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:18:53 -0400 Message-ID: <44803ABA.6050001@bigpond.net.au> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:18:50 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: sekharan@us.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, Andrew Morton , Srivatsa , Sam Vilain , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel , Kingsley Cheung , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Rene Herman Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps References: <20060526042021.2886.4957.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <20060526042051.2886.70594.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <661de9470605262348s52401792x213f7143d16bada3@mail.gmail.com> <44781167.6060700@bigpond.net.au> <447D95DE.1080903@sw.ru> <447DBD44.5040602@in.ibm.com> <447E9A1D.9040109@openvz.org> <447EA694.8060407@in.ibm.com> <1149187413.13336.24.camel@linuxchandra> <447FD2E1.7060605@bigpond.net.au> <1149237992.9446.133.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> In-Reply-To: <1149237992.9446.133.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:18:51 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:55 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: >> Chandra Seetharaman wrote: >>> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:04 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >>>> Hi, Kirill, >>>> >>>> Kirill Korotaev wrote: >>>>>> Do you have any documented requirements for container resource >>>>>> management? >>>>>> Is there a minimum list of features and nice to have features for >>>>>> containers >>>>>> as far as resource management is concerned? >>>>> Sure! You can check OpenVZ project (http://openvz.org) for example of >>>>> required resource management. BTW, I must agree with other people here >>>>> who noticed that per-process resource management is really useless and >>>>> hard to use :( >>> I totally agree. >> "nice" seems to be doing quite nicely :-) >> >> To me this capping functionality is a similar functionality to that >> provided by "nice" and all that's needed to make it useful is a command >> (similar to "nice") that runs tasks with caps applied. > > Similar in that they are both inherited. Very dissimilar in that the > effect of nice is not altered by fork whereas the effect of a cap is. > > Consider make. A cap on make itself isn't meaningful, and _any_ per > task cap you put on it with the intent of managing the aggregate, is > defeated by the argument -j. Per task caps require omniscience to be > effective in managing processes. That's a pretty severe limitation. These caps aren't trying to control aggregates but with suitable software they can be used to control aggregates. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce