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 #6316 is a reply to message #6308] Thu, 14 September 2006 01:22 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Rohit Seth is currently offline  Rohit Seth
Messages: 101
Registered: August 2006
Senior Member
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 15:20 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:25 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Ok. Understood.
>
> Here are results of some of the benchmarks we have run in the past
> (April 2005) with CKRM which showed no/negligible performance impact in
> that scenario.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111325064322 305&w=2
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111385973226 267&w=2
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111291409731 929&w=2
> >


These are good results. But I still think the cost will increase over a
period of time as more logic gets added. Any data on microbenchmarks
like lmbench.

> <snip>
>
> > > 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
>
> The core resource subsystem (VM subsystem for memory) would know about
> the guarantees and don't cares, and it would handle it appropriately.
>

...meaning hooks in the generic kernel reclaim algorithm. Getting
something like that in mainline will be at best tricky.


-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: Fri Jul 18 22:35:44 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04520 seconds