On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:30 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
<snip>
> > * Supports hard limit and soft limit
> > * Introduces new task priorities where tasks that have exceeded their
> > soft limit can be "parked" until the O(1) scheduler picks them for
> > execution
> > * Load balancing on SMP systems made aware of tasks whose execution
> > rate is limited by this feature
> > * Patch is simple
> >
> > Limitations:
> > * Does not support guarantee
>
> Why would a capping mechanism support guarantees? The two mechanisms
> can be implemented separately. The only interaction between them that
> is required is a statement about which has precedence. I.e. if a cap is
> less than a guarantee is it enforced? I would opine that it should be.
When this combination occurs userspace is crazy/uncoordinated/dumb and
can't be "satisfied". Perhaps the better approach is to ignore both
guarantee and limit (cap) in this case -- treat it as if userspace
hasn't specified either.
Alternatively the kernel can refuse to allow configuring such a
combination in the first place. This is one reason tying guarantees and
limits (caps) into the same framework would be useful.
<snip>
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
