Re: [RFC] CPU controllers?

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Sam Vilain wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>> The answer is quite simple, people who are consolidating systems and 
>>> working with fewer, larger systems, want to mark processes, groups of 
>>> processes or entire containers into CPU scheduling classes, then 
>>> either fair balance between them, limit them or reserve them a 
>>> portion of the CPU - depending on the user and what their 
>>> requirements are. What is unclear about that?
>>>
>>
>> It is unclear whether we should have hard limits, or just nice like
>> priority levels. Whether virtualisation (+/- containers) could be a
>> good solution, etc.
> 
> 
> Look, that was actually answered in the paragraph you're responding to. 
> Once again, give me a set of possible requirements and I'll find you a 
> set of users that have them. I am finding this sub-thread quite redundant.

Clearly we can't stuff everything into the kernel. What I'm asking is
what the important functionality is that people want to cover. I don't
know how you could possibly interpret it as anything else.

> 
>> If you want to *completely* isolate N groups of users, surely you
>> have to use virtualisation, unless you are willing to isolate memory
>> management, pagecache, slab caches, network and disk IO, etc.
> 
> 
> No, you have to use separate hardware. Try to claim otherwise and you're 
> glossing over the corner cases.

Well, virtualisation seems like it would get you a lot further than
containers for the same amount of work.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com