Jail-Aware Scheduling

[Kip Macy]

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 <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>