Bharata B Rao wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Bharata B Rao wrote:
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 ?
That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and
guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that
works when you advance the bandwidth period.
I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something
derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they
can be used to provide SLAs).
I agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about
1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and
Why would you allow specifying a lower bound for cpu usage (a
guarantee), and upper bound (a limit), but not both?
2. not deriving guarantees from limits.
Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think
limiting should drive the guarantees
That would be fine if it didn't idle the cpu despite there being demand
and available cpu power.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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
