Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:04:33 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:55 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: <snip>
> >>If you have a single container controlling all the resources, then > >>placing kjournald into CPU container would require setting > >>it's memory limits etc. And kjournald will start to be accounted separately, > > > > > > Not necessarily. You could just set the CPU shares of the group and > > leave the other resources as don't care. > don't care IMHO doesn't mean "accounted and limited as container X". > it sounds like "no limits" for me.
Yes. But, it would provide the same functionality that you want (i.e limit only CPU and no other resources).
> > >>while my intention is kjournald to be accounted as the host system. > >>I only want to _guarentee_ some CPU to it. > > I do not see any _guarantee_ support, only barrier(soft limit) and > > limit. May be I overlooked. Can you tell me how guarantee is achieved > > with UBC. > we just provide additional parameters like oomguarpages, where barrier > is a guarantee.
I take it that you are suggesting that the controller can use barrier as guarantee.
I don't see how it will work. charge_beancounter() returns -ENOMEM even when the group is over its barrier (when queried with strict == UB_BARRIER).
I have to see the oomguarpatches patches for understanding this, I suppose. > > Kirill --
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |