On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:03:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Its ->wait_runtime will drop less significantly, which lets it be > inserted in rb-tree much to the left of those 1000 tasks (and which indirectly > lets it gain back its fair share during subsequent schedule cycles). > > Hmm ..is that the theory? My only concern is the time needed to converge to this fair distribution, especially in face of fluctuating workloads. For ex: a container who does a fork bomb can have a very adverse impact on other container's fair share under this scheme compared to other schemes which dedicate separate rb-trees for differnet containers (and which also support two level hierarchical scheduling inside the core scheduler). I am inclined to have the core scheduler support atleast two levels of hierarchy (to better isolate each container) and resort to the flattening trick for higher levels. -- Regards, vatsa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
