From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751094AbWFBCCq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:02:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751098AbWFBCCq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:02:46 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:10190 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094AbWFBCCp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:02:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Peter Williams Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, Andrew Morton , Srivatsa , Sam Vilain , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel , Kingsley Cheung , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Rene Herman In-Reply-To: <447F77A4.3000102@bigpond.net.au> 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> <447F77A4.3000102@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:02:39 -0700 Message-Id: <1149213759.10377.7.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 09:26 +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. > >> I'll take a look at the references. I agree with you that it will be useful > >> to have resource management for a group of tasks. > > But you don't need something as complex as CKRM either. This capping All CKRM^W Resource Groups does is to group unrelated/related tasks to a group and apply resource limits. > > functionality coupled with (the lamented) PAGG patches (should have been > called TAGG for "task aggregation" instead of PAGG for "process > aggregation") would allow you to implement a kernel module that could > apply caps to arbitrary groups of tasks. I do not follow how PAGG + this cap feature can be used to put cap of related/unrelated tasks. Can you provide little more explanation, please. Also, i do not think it can provide guarantees to that group of tasks. can it ? > > Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------