* Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-06-05 11:01:59]: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:27:55PM +0800, Balbir Singh wrote: > > * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-06-05 08:21:43]: > > > > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > >>> But then there is no other way to make a *guarantee*, guarantees come > > >>> at a cost of idling resources, no? Can you show me any other > > >>> combination that will provide the guarantee and without idling the > > >>> system for the specified guarantees? > > >>> > > >> > > >> OK, I see part of your concern, but I think we could do some > > >> optimizations during design. For example if all groups have reached > > >> their hard-limit and the system is idle, should we do start a new hard > > >> limit interval and restart, so that idleness can be removed. Would > > >> that be an acceptable design point? > > > > > > I think so. Given guarantees G1..Gn (0 <= Gi <= 1; sum(Gi) <= 1), and a > > > cpu hog running in each group, how would the algorithm divide resources? > > > > > > > As per the matrix calculation, but as soon as we reach an idle point, > > we redistribute the b/w and start a new quantum so to speak, where all > > groups are charged up to their hard limits. > > But could there be client models where you are required to strictly > adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing > the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ? > Good point, I think so, so I think there is should be a good default and configurable for the other case. -- Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
