Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

[Avi Kivity]

Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > So the groups with guarantees get a priority boost.  That's not a good  
> > side effect.
> >     
>
> That happens only in the presence of idle cycles when other groups [with or
> without guarantees] have nothing useful to do. So how would that matter
> since there is nothing else to run anyway ?
>   

If there are three groups, each running a cpu hog, and they have (say) 
guarantees of 10%, 10%, and 0%, then they should each get 33% of the 
cpu, not biased towards the groups with the guarantee.

If I want to change the weights, I'll alter their priority.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/