From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965041AbWFTFku (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:40:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965044AbWFTFku (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:40:50 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:42211 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965041AbWFTFkt (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:40:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:10:27 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Chandra Seetharaman Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , sam@vilain.net, dev@openvz.org, efault@gmx.de, mingo@elte.hu, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, balbir@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maeda.naoaki@jp.fujitsu.com, kurosawa@valinux.co.jp, ckrm-tech Subject: Re: Resource Management Requirements (was "[RFC] CPU controllers?") Message-ID: <20060620054027.GA1083@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20060615134632.GA22033@in.ibm.com> <4493C1D1.4020801@yahoo.com.au> <20060617164812.GB4643@in.ibm.com> <4494DF50.2070509@yahoo.com.au> <4494EA66.8030305@vilain.net> <4494EE86.7090209@yahoo.com.au> <20060617234259.dc34a20c.akpm@osdl.org> <4495009D.9030505@yahoo.com.au> <1150743803.30013.37.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1150743803.30013.37.camel@linuxchandra> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 12:03:23PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 17:28 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > OK... let me put it more clearly. What are the requirements? At a very broad-level, all the requirements pointed by Chandra below boil down to the requirement of providing guaranteed CPU usage for a group of tasks and the ability of limiting (hard or soft) CPU usage of other group of tasks. At a finer-level, this broad requirement could be interpreted and implemented in a number of ways (ex: by having kernel support only task-level limit and implementing group-level in user-space etc) and thats what this RFC was about - to discuss what minimal kernel support would be needed to support the above broad requirement! > Nick, > > Here are some requirements we(Resource Groups aka CKRM) are working > towards (Note that this is not limited to CPU alone): > > In a enterprise environment: > - Ability to group applications into their importance levels and assign > appropriate amount of resources to them. > - In case of server consolidation, ability to allocate and control > resources to a specific group of applications. Ability to > account/charge according to their usages. > - manage multiple departments in a single OS instance with ability to > allocate and control resources department wise (similar to above > requirement :) > - ability to guarantee "time to complete" for a specific user > request (by controlling resource usage starting from the web server > to the database server). > - In case of ISPs and ASPs, ability to guarantee/limit usages to > independent clients (in a single OS instance). > - Ability to control runaway processes from bringing down the system > response (DoS attacks, fork bombs etc.,) > > In a university environment (can be treated as a subset of enterprise > requirements above): > - Ability to limit resource consumption at individual user level. > - Ability to control runaway processes. > - Ability for a user to manage resources allocated to them (as > explained in the desktop environment below). > > In a desktop environment: > - Ability to control resource usage of a set of applications > (ex: infamous updatedb issue). > - Ability to run different loads and get the expected result (like > checking emails or browsing Internet while compilation is in > progress) > > Generic: > Provide these resource management capabilities with less overhead on > overall system performance. -- Regards, vatsa