Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vsunpinnede

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-09 14:31:02]:

> > We have setup cgroups and their hard limits so that in theory they should
> > consume the entire capacity available on machine, leading to 0% idle time.
> > That's not what we see. A more detailed description of the setup and the problem
> > is here:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/7/352
> 
> That's frigging irrelevant isn't it? A patch should contain its own
> justification.

Agreed my bad. I was (wrongly) setting the problem context by posting
this in response to Paul's email where the problem was discussed.

> > One
> > possibility is to make the idle load balancer become aggressive in
> > pulling tasks across sched-domain boundaries i.e when a CPU becomes idle
> > (after a task got throttled) and invokes the idle load balancer, it
> > should try "harder" at pulling a task from far-off cpus (across
> > package/node boundaries)?
> 
> How about we just live with it?

I think we will, unless the load balancer can be improved (which seems unlikely 
to me :-()

- vatsa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/