Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction [message #6627] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 20:49 |
Paul Jackson
Messages: 157 Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul M wrote:
> Even if the resource control portions aren't totally compatible,
> having two separate process container abstractions in the kernel is
> sub-optimal
At heart, CKRM (ne Resource Groups) are (well, have been until now)
different than cpusets.
Cpusets answers the question 'where', and Resource Groups 'how much'.
The fundamental motivation behind cpusets was to be able to enforce
job isolation. A job can get dedicated use of specified resources,
-even- if it means those resources are severely underutilized by that
job.
The fundamental motivation (Chandra or others correct me if I'm wrong)
of Resource Groups is to improve capacity utilization while limiting
starvation due to greedy, competing users for the same resources.
Cpusets seeks maximum isolation. Resource Groups seeks maximum
capacity utilization while preserving guaranteed levels of quality
of service.
Cpusets are that wall between you and the neighbor you might not
trust. Resource groups are a large family of modest wealth sitting
down to share a meal.
It seems that cpusets can mimic memory resource groups. I don't
see how cpusets could mimic other resource groups. But maybe I'm
just being a dimm bulb.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
|
|
|
|
Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction [message #6661 is a reply to message #6658] |
Thu, 21 September 2006 00:51 |
Paul Jackson
Messages: 157 Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chandra wrote:
> > It seems that cpusets can mimic memory resource groups. I don't
>
> I am little confused w.r.t how cpuset can mimic memory resource groups.
> How can cpuset provide support for over commit.
I didn't say "mimic well" ;).
I had no clue cpusets could do overcommit at all, though Paul Menage just
posted a notion of how to mimic overcommit, with his post beginning:
> I have some patches locally that basically let you give out a small
> set of nodes initially to a cpuset, and if memory pressure in
> try_to_free_pages() passes a specified threshold, automatically
> allocate one of the parent cpuset's unused memory nodes to the child
> cpuset, up to specified limit.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
|
|
|
Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction [message #6743 is a reply to message #6627] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 20:51 |
Paul Menage
Messages: 642 Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/20/06, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that cpusets can mimic memory resource groups. I don't
> see how cpusets could mimic other resource groups. But maybe I'm
> just being a dimm bulb.
>
I'm not saying that they can - but they could be parallel types of
resource controller for a generic container abstraction, so that
userspace can create a container, and use e.g. memory node isolation
from the cpusets code in conjunction with the resource groups %-based
CPU scheduler.
Paul
|
|
|