From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932153AbWFBOor (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:44:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932157AbWFBOor (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:44:47 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:21651 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932153AbWFBOoq (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:44:46 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps From: Mike Galbraith To: Peter Williams Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, Andrew Morton , Srivatsa , Sam Vilain , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel , Kingsley Cheung , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Rene Herman In-Reply-To: <44803ABA.6050001@bigpond.net.au> References: <20060526042021.2886.4957.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <20060526042051.2886.70594.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <661de9470605262348s52401792x213f7143d16bada3@mail.gmail.com> <44781167.6060700@bigpond.net.au> <447D95DE.1080903@sw.ru> <447DBD44.5040602@in.ibm.com> <447E9A1D.9040109@openvz.org> <447EA694.8060407@in.ibm.com> <1149187413.13336.24.camel@linuxchandra> <447FD2E1.7060605@bigpond.net.au> <1149237992.9446.133.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> <44803ABA.6050001@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:47:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1149259639.8661.22.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 23:18 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:55 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > >> Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:04 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > >>>> Hi, Kirill, > >>>> > >>>> Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>>>>> Do you have any documented requirements for container resource > >>>>>> management? > >>>>>> Is there a minimum list of features and nice to have features for > >>>>>> containers > >>>>>> as far as resource management is concerned? > >>>>> Sure! You can check OpenVZ project (http://openvz.org) for example of > >>>>> required resource management. BTW, I must agree with other people here > >>>>> who noticed that per-process resource management is really useless and > >>>>> hard to use :( > >>> I totally agree. > >> "nice" seems to be doing quite nicely :-) > >> > >> To me this capping functionality is a similar functionality to that > >> provided by "nice" and all that's needed to make it useful is a command > >> (similar to "nice") that runs tasks with caps applied. > > > > Similar in that they are both inherited. Very dissimilar in that the > > effect of nice is not altered by fork whereas the effect of a cap is. > > > > Consider make. A cap on make itself isn't meaningful, and _any_ per > > task cap you put on it with the intent of managing the aggregate, is > > defeated by the argument -j. Per task caps require omniscience to be > > effective in managing processes. That's a pretty severe limitation. > > These caps aren't trying to control aggregates but with suitable > software they can be used to control aggregates. How? How would you deal with the make example with per task caps. -Mike