Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

[Balbir Singh]

* Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-06-04 23:09:22]:

> Balbir Singh wrote:
> 
> > But then there is no other way to make a *guarantee*, guarantees come
> > at a cost of idling resources, no? Can you show me any other
> > combination that will provide the guarantee and without idling the
> > system for the specified guarantees?
> 
> The example given was two 10% guaranteed groups and one best-effort
> group.  Why would this require idling resources?
> 
> If I have a hog in each group, the requirements would be met if the
> groups got 33, 33, and 33.  (Or 10/10/80, for that matter.)  If the
> second and third groups go idle, why not let the first group use 100% of
> the cpu?
> 
> The only hard restriction is that the sum of the guarantees must be less
> than 100%.
>

Chris,

I just responded to a variation of this, I think that some of this
could be handled during design. I just sent out the email a few
minutes ago. Could you look at that and respond. 

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/