On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:46:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > i'd still like to hear back from Kirill & co whether this framework is
> > flexible enough for their work (OpenVZ, etc.) too.
>
> My IMHO is that so far the proposed group scheduler doesn't look ready/suitable.
Hi Kirill,
Yes its work-in-progress and hence is not ready/fully-functional
(yet). The patches I posted last gives an idea of the direction it is
heading. For ex: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/11/162 and
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/25/146 gives an idea of how SMP load balance will
works.
IMHO the nice thing about this approach is it (re)uses lot of code in
scheduler which is there already to achieve fairness between tasks and
higher schedulable elements (users/containers etc).
Also with CFS engine's precise nanosecond accurate accounting and time-sorted
list of tasks/entities, I feel we will get much tighter control over
distribution of CPU between tasks/users/containers.
> We need to have a working SMP version before it will be clear
> whether the whole approach is good and works correct on variety of load patterns.
If you have any headsup thoughts on areas/workloads where this may pose problems
for container/user scheduling, I would be glad to hear them. Otherwise I would
greatly wellcome any help in developing/reviewing these patches which meets
both our goals!
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
