Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:53:15AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: >> This claim (and the subsequent long thread it generated on how limits >> can provide guarantees) confused me a bit. >> >> Why do we need limits to provide guarantees when we can already >> provide guarantees via shares? > > I think the interval over which we need guarantee matters here. Shares > can generally provide guaranteed share of resource over longer (sometimes > minutes) intervals. For high-priority bursty workloads, the latency in > achieving guaranteed resource usage matters. By having hard-limits, we are > "reserving" (potentially idle) slots where the high-priority group can run and > claim its guaranteed share almost immediately. Why do you need to "reserve" it though? By definition, if it's high-priority then it should be able to interrupt the currently running task. Chris -- 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
