Re: A nice CPU resource controller

[Chris Friesen]

Martin Ohlin wrote:

> Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group 
> level, then the individual shares within the group are not that 
> important. If the individual share is important, then it should be 
> controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.

The individual share within the group may not be important, but the 
relative priority might be.


We have instances were we would like to express something like:

--these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and 
should be guaranteed 3% of the system together
	--within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the 
most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the 
other maintenance tasks


From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task 
priority should be orthogonal.

First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then 
within the group you pick the task with highest priority.

This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO).

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/