Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:06:41PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> OK. Then limiting must be done this way (unreclaimable limit/total limit)
> A (15/40)
> B (25/100)
> C (35/100)

s/35/30?

Also the different b/n total and unreclaimable limits goes towards
limiting reclaimable memory i suppose? And 1st limit seems to be a
hard-limit while the 2nd one is soft?

> D (10/100)
> E (20/50)
> In this case each group will receive it's guarantee for sure.
> 
> E.g. even if A, B, E and D will eat all it's unreclaimable memory then
> we'll have
> 100 - 15 - 25 - 20 - 10 = 30% of memory left (maybe after reclaiming) which
> is perfectly enough for C's guarantee.

I agree by carefully choosing these limits, we can provide some sort of
QoS, which is a good step to begin with.


-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/