On 10/30/2012 02:37 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37
On 10/30/2012 01:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 11:27 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?
Yep, people like to carve up their machines, esp. now that they're
somewhat bigger than they used to be. This can result in very
On 10/30/2012 01:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 11:27 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?
Yep, people like to carve up their machines, esp. now that they're
somewhat bigger than they used to be. This can result in very
On 10/30/2012 02:37 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 11:27 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?
Yep, people like to carve up their machines, esp. now that they're
somewhat bigger than they used to be. This can result in very asymmetric
loads, no global measure can ever deal with
On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>+/*
> >>+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
> >>+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
> >>+
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
+ * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
+ */
+#define
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
+ * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
+ */
+#define
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
+ * overcommit
On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 11:27 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?
Yep, people like to carve up their machines, esp. now that they're
somewhat bigger than they used to be. This can result in very asymmetric
loads, no global measure can ever deal with
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> +/*
> + * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
> + * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
> + * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
> + */
> +#define COMMIT_THRESHOLD (FIXED_1)
> +#define
From: Raghavendra K T
The patch indroduces a helper function that calculates the system load
(idea borrowed from loadavg calculation). The load is normalized to
2048 i.e., return value (threshold) of 2048 implies an approximate 1:1
committed guest.
In undercommit cases (threshold/2) we simply
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
The patch indroduces a helper function that calculates the system load
(idea borrowed from loadavg calculation). The load is normalized to
2048 i.e., return value (threshold) of 2048 implies an approximate 1:1
committed guest.
In
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+/*
+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
+ * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
+ */
+#define COMMIT_THRESHOLD (FIXED_1)
+#define
18 matches
Mail list logo
