On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:01 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Martin Ohlin wrote:
>
> > Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group
> > level, then the individual shares within the group are not that
> > important. If the individual share is important, then it should be
> > controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.
>
> The individual share within the group may not be important, but the
> relative priority might be.
>
>
> We have instances were we would like to express something like:
>
> --these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and
> should be guaranteed 3% of the system together
> --within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the
> most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the
> other maintenance tasks
The latency issue is hard.
> From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task
> priority should be orthogonal.
>
> First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then
> within the group you pick the task with highest priority.
>
> This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO).
I'd really like to see what Kiril's suggestion looks like.
-Mike
-
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]
