Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) | From | Rohit Seth <> | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:43:23 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:02 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:22 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:14 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:10:31PM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > > It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit > > > > should more be treated as something beyond which that resource > > > > consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed. > > > > > > The big question is : are containers/RG allowed to use *upto* their > > > limit always? In other words, will you typically setup limits such that > > > sum of all limits = max resource capacity? > > > > > > > If a user is really interested in ensuring that all scheduled jobs (or > > containers) get what they have asked for (guarantees) then making the > > sum of all container limits equal to total system limit is the right > > thing to do. > > > > > If it is setup like that, then what you are considering as limit is > > > actually guar no? > > > > > Right. And if we do it like this then it is up to sysadmin to configure > > the thing right without adding additional logic in kernel. > > It won't be a complete solution, as the user won't be able to > - set both guarantee and limit for a resource group > - use limit on some and guarantee on some > - optimize the usage of available resources
I think, if we have some of the dynamic resource limit adjustments possible then some of the above functionality could be achieved. And I think that could be a good start point.
-rohit
- 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/
| |