* Balbir Singh <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-06-05 12:49:46]:
> * Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> [2009-06-05 07:44:27]:
>
> > Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Another way is to place the 8 groups in a container group, and limit
> >>>>> that to 80%. But that doesn't work if I want to provide guarantees to
> >>>>> several groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hmm why not ? Reduce the guarantee of the container group and provide
> >>>> the same to additional groups ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> This method produces suboptimal results:
> >>>
> >>> $ cgroup-limits 10 10 0
> >>> [50.0, 50.0, 40.0]
> >>>
> >>> I want to provide two 10% guaranteed groups and one best-effort group.
> >>> Using the limits method, no group can now use more than 50% of the
> >>> resources. However, having the first group use 90% of the resources does
> >>> not violate any guarantees, but it not allowed by the solution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> How, it works out fine in my calculation
> >>
> >> 50 + 40 for G2 and G3, make sure that G1 gets 10%, since others are
> >> limited to 90%
> >> 50 + 40 for G1 and G3, make sure that G2 gets 10%, since others are
> >> limited to 90%
> >> 50 + 50 for G1 and G2, make sure that G3 gets 0%, since others are
> >> limited to 100%
> >>
> >
> > It's fine in that it satisfies the guarantees, but it is deeply
> > suboptimal. If I ran a cpu hog in the first group, while the other two
> > were idle, it would be limited to 50% cpu. On the other hand, if it
> > consumed all 100% cpu it would still satisfy the guarantees (as the
> > other groups are idle).
> >
> > The result is that in such a situation, wall clock time would double
> > even though cpu resources are available.
>
> 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?
OK, I see part of your concern, but I think we could do some
optimizations during design. For example if all groups have reached
their hard-limit and the system is idle, should we do start a new hard
limit interval and restart, so that idleness can be removed. Would
that be an acceptable design point?
--
Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
