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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 16:58 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-13 11:39:48]:
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:33 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is perhaps not optimal (as it may lead to more lock contentions), but 
> > > something to note for those who care for both capping and utilization in
> > > equal measure!
> > 
> > You meant lock inversion, which leads to more idle time :-)
> 
> I think 'cfs_b->lock' contention would go up significantly when reducing
> sysctl_sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice, while for something like 'balancing' lock 
> (taken with SD_SERIALIZE set and more frequently when tuning down
> max_interval?), yes it may increase idle time! Did you have any other
> lock in mind when speaking of inversion?

I can't read it seems.. I thought you were talking about increasing the
period, which increases the time you force a task to sleep that's
holding locks etc..
--
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/