From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750706AbWFEWLW (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:11:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750720AbWFEWLW (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:11:22 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:8863 "EHLO watts.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750706AbWFEWLV (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:11:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4484ABF9.50503@vilain.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:11:05 +1200 From: Sam Vilain User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Peter Williams , sekharan@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Srivatsa , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, Balbir Singh , Mike Galbraith , 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> <447FECFD.8000602@openvz.org> In-Reply-To: <447FECFD.8000602@openvz.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kirill Korotaev wrote: >>"nice" seems to be doing quite nicely :-) >> >> >I'm sorry, but nice never looked "nice" to me. >Have you ever tried to "nice" apache server which spawns 500 >processes/threads on a loaded machine? >With nice you _can't_ impose limits or priority on the whole "apache". >The more apaches you have the more useless their priorites and nices are... > > Yes but interactive admin processes will still get a large bonus relative to the apache processes so you can still log in and kill the apache storm off even with very large loads. Sam.