OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) [message #6264 is a reply to message #6263] Wed, 13 September 2006 01:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Rohit Seth is currently offline  Rohit Seth
Messages: 101
Registered: August 2006
Senior Member
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:10 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:39 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> <snip>
> > > yes, it would be there, but is not heavy, IMO.
> >
> > I think anything greater than 1% could be a concern for people who are
> > not very interested in containers but would be forced to live with them.
>
> If they are not interested in resource management and/or containers, i
> do not think they need to pay.
> >

Think of a single kernel from a vendor that has container support built
in.

> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And anything running outside a container should be limited by default
> > > > > > Linux settings.
> > > > >
> > > > > note that the resource available to the default RG will be (total system
> > > > > resource - allocated to RGs).
> > > >
> > > > I think it will be preferable to not change the existing behavior for
> > > > applications that are running outside any container (in your case
> > > > default resource group).
> > >
> > > hmm, when you provide QoS for a set of apps, you will affect (the
> > > resource availability of) other apps. I don't see any way around it. Any
> > > ideas ?
> >
> > When I say, existing behavior, I mean not getting impacted by some
> > artificial limits that are imposed by container subsystem. IOW, if a
>
> That is what I understood and replied above.
> > sysadmin is okay to have certain apps running outside of container then
> > he is basically forgoing any QoS for any container on that system.
>
> Not at all. If the container they are interested in is guaranteed, I do
> not see how apps running outside a container would affect them.
>

Because the kernel (outside the container subsystem) doesn't know of
these guarantees...unless you modify the page allocator to have another
variant of overcommit memory.

> <snip>
> > > > > Not really.
> > > > > - Each RG will have a guarantee and limit of each resource.
> > > > > - default RG will have (system resource - sum of guarantees)
> > > > > - Every RG will be guaranteed some amount of resource to provide QoS
> > > > > - Every RG will be limited at "limit" to prevent DoS attacks.
> > > > > - Whoever doesn't care either of those set them to don't care values.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For the cases that put this don't care, do you depend on existing
> > > > reclaim algorithm (for memory) in kernel?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > So one container with these don't care condition(s) can turn the whole
> > guarantee thing bad. Because existing kernel reclaimer does not know
> > about memory commitments to other containers. Right?
>
> No, the reclaimer would free up pages associated with the don't care RGs
> ( as the user don't care about the resource made available to them).
>

And how will the kernel reclaimer know which RGs are don't care?

-rohit
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Acks for 3 pid-namespace patches
Next Topic: [Patch 01/05]- Containers: Documentation on using containers
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jul 14 11:33:30 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01708 seconds