From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 12 01:38:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BB516A41A for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:38:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6722443D45 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:38:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 13so1127604nzn for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rwZVOfn3nxKeqn+Bbf/LrUWFqXEALGTn+4EmQiYNxXQBfbAGb3uu2L7HfnXGhKQ/a7bGEIBFY+sMuMcYRkXC4K30Z6EjZ0W9o6FYkOFMGCsbp5Mg4SvIzear6x19cFza29abV0L+e8t/LA8SKPNSLTGWnd4FxFankOzyFUyxshQ= Received: by 10.64.150.16 with SMTP id x16mr1773252qbd; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.231.11 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:38:52 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" To: "Peter Jeremy" In-Reply-To: <20060612001524.GD739@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1A2863A3-21D6-4F38-AB98-BAB605507095@novusordo.net> <200606111450.31041.pieter@degoeje.nl> <20060612001524.GD739@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Cc: Pieter de Goeje , Chris Jones , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jail-Aware Scheduling X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: kmacy@fsmware.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:38:54 -0000 I personally prefer the notion of layering the normal scheduler on top of a simple fair-share scheduler. This would not add any overhead for the non-jailed case. Complicating the process scheduler poses maintenance, scalability, and general performance problems. -Kip On 6/11/06, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sun, 2006-Jun-11 14:50:30 +0200, Pieter de Goeje wrote: > >I suppose by limiting the jail CPU usage you mean that jails contending over > >CPU each get their assigned share. But when the system is idle one jail can > >get all the CPU it wants. > > IBM MVS had an interesting alternative approach, which I believe was > part of the scheduler: You could place an upper limit on the CPU > allocated to a process. From a user perspective, an application would > respond in (say) 2 seconds whether the system was completely idle or > at normal load. This stopped users complaining that the system was > slow as the system got loaded. In the case of jailed systems, it > could also prevent (or minimize) traffic analysis of the system by a > jailed process. > > -- > Peter Jeremy > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >