On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 18:44 +0530, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote: > Interesting implementation of resource controls. Cross posting this
I second this :) Browsed a little through the docs/patches... seems to fit very well into a resource management solution (hint CKRM :) than CPUSET (resource isolation). I can see the usefulness of resource management inside CPUSET. We have had discussions earlier(in lkml and lse-tech) about how CKRM can play inside a CPUSET, and this plays directly into that, providing resource management inside a CPUSET. The parameters used, guarantee and limit, fits very well into CKRM's shares usage model. Takahiro-san, How much effort you think will be needed to make this work under CKRM. thanks. > to ckrm-tech as well. I am sure CKRM folks have something to say... > > Any thoughts about how you want to add more resource control features > on top of/in addition to this setup. (Such as memory etc) > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:23:23AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > > I'm guessing you do not want such cpusets (the parents of subcpusets) > > to overlap, because if they did, it would seem to confuse the meaning > > of getting a fixed proportion of available cpu and memory resources. I > > was a little surprised not to see any additional checks that > > cpu_exclusive and mem_exclusive must be set true in these cpusets, to > > insure non- overlapping cpusets. > > I agree with Paul here. You would want to build your controllers > on top of exclusive cpusets to keep things sane. > > > On the other hand, Dinakar had more work to do than you might, because > > he needed a complete covering (so had to round up cpus in non exclusive > > cpusets to form more covering elements). From what I can tell, you > > don't need a complete covering - it seems fine if some cpus are not > > managed by this resource control function. > > > I think it makes more sense to add this functionality directly as part > of the existing cpusets instead of creating further leaf cpusets (or > subcpusets > as you call it) where we can specify resource control parameters. I think > that > approach would be much more intuitive and simple to work with rather than > what you have currently. > > -Dinakar > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
