On 6 December 2016 at 17:42, Patrick Mooney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6 December 2016 at 08:41, Nahum Shalman <[email protected]> wrote > >> Additional thoughts: >> I wonder how bad it would be to allow the LX brand to alter how many CPUs >> the Linux system calls see based on a zone property (probably a new one...) >> My first instinct is "not that bad", though my second instinct is "the >> consequences of doing so are subtle and it's probably much worse than I >> would think". >> > > This topic comes up fairly often. It's very difficult to tell a > convincing "lie" about how many CPUs are available on the system. If you > were to report only 0-7 cores out of 24, for example, software querying the > CPU ID may still see higher identifiers if it's scheduled onto the other > socket. It's also possible that total CPU time enforced by the cap would > exceed what would be theoretically possible on the virtual CPUs which have > been presented. (If 8.5 seconds of CPU time were consumed on those "8 > cores" in 1 second, tools like 'top' might be grumpy.) > > All in all, "subtle consequences" is an accurate description of why the > task is difficult accomplish correctly. > I wonder if its worth looking at LXC / bhyve to see if they have any ideas on this ? Subtle consequences indeed ! ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
