Hi Tejun, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:32:01AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I think what you want is just a way to specify absolute limits using >> > percentages of what's available at the time of configuration - >> > e.g. being able to say "allow upto 30% of what's available in the >> > parent". >> >> Yes. I am concerned about how to configure < 1% value to avoid >> floating point math in kernel as thats discouraged. >> Configuring in range of 1 to 100% for a given resource limits to only >> 100 or less cgroup instances which I think is not desired. > > Heh, we can go for per-mil and use %0 as the suffix if absolutely > necessary but is this a real issue? > We need to provide current version to exceed the 100 containers limit first. :-) Please let me know if such user interface already exist as reference point. I prefer to avoid introducing such configuration. >> > If so, the simplest way would be simply updating the >> > existing knobs to accept % inputs in addition to absolute values on >> > writes. >> >> I was not sure to overload rdma.max file for accepting % inputs as >> thats not done in other cgroups. So I was thinking more of weights >> interface which avoids floating point problem and also allows much >> wider configuration range. > > I think it's a lot more consistent to implement all absoulte limits > through max. I agree. I will implement reporting actual max values instead of reporting "max" string so that percentage configuration can be done by the user space tools. (post merging of v12). Waiting for direction from Doug. > weight is for actual proportional control which this > isn't. It's just a fancy way of specifying absolute limits. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
