From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham-lkml-VWkGxi2CTS+6c6uEtOJ/EA@public.gmane.org>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] do not count frozen tasks toward load
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:56:07 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1239238567.14883.2.camel@nigel-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090408194512.47a99b95-qBK8ZvQsWF7hXIiyNabO3w@public.gmane.org>
Hi.
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 19:45 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Freezing tasks via the cgroup freezer causes the load average to climb
> because the freezer's current implementation puts frozen tasks in
> uninterruptible sleep (D state).
>
> Some applications which perform job-scheduling functions consult the
> load average when making decisions. If a cgroup is frozen, the load
> average does not provide a useful measure of the system's utilization
> to such applications. This is especially inconvenient if the job
> scheduler employs the cgroup freezer as a mechanism for preempting low
> priority jobs. Contrast this with using SIGSTOP for the same purpose:
> the stopped tasks do not count toward system load.
>
> Change task_contributes_to_load() to return false if the task is
> frozen. This results in /proc/loadavg behavior that better meets
> users' expectations.
Sounds great to me - TuxOnIce has had code to save and restore the load
average for ages because of the same issue. This is much better because
it gets to the root of the problem.
I'll apply it here, give it a test and hopefully give you an Acked-by
shortly.
Regards,
Nigel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham-lkml@crca.org.au>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] do not count frozen tasks toward load
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:56:07 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1239238567.14883.2.camel@nigel-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090408194512.47a99b95@manatee.lan>
Hi.
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 19:45 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Freezing tasks via the cgroup freezer causes the load average to climb
> because the freezer's current implementation puts frozen tasks in
> uninterruptible sleep (D state).
>
> Some applications which perform job-scheduling functions consult the
> load average when making decisions. If a cgroup is frozen, the load
> average does not provide a useful measure of the system's utilization
> to such applications. This is especially inconvenient if the job
> scheduler employs the cgroup freezer as a mechanism for preempting low
> priority jobs. Contrast this with using SIGSTOP for the same purpose:
> the stopped tasks do not count toward system load.
>
> Change task_contributes_to_load() to return false if the task is
> frozen. This results in /proc/loadavg behavior that better meets
> users' expectations.
Sounds great to me - TuxOnIce has had code to save and restore the load
average for ages because of the same issue. This is much better because
it gets to the root of the problem.
I'll apply it here, give it a test and hopefully give you an Acked-by
shortly.
Regards,
Nigel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-09 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-09 0:45 [PATCH/RFC] do not count frozen tasks toward load Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 0:56 ` Nigel Cunningham
[not found] ` <20090408194512.47a99b95-qBK8ZvQsWF7hXIiyNabO3w@public.gmane.org>
2009-04-09 0:56 ` Nigel Cunningham [this message]
2009-04-09 0:56 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-04-09 0:57 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 1:21 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-04-09 0:57 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 0:57 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 1:21 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-04-09 1:21 ` Nigel Cunningham
2009-04-09 4:37 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: " Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 5:39 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-10 9:20 ` Pavel Machek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-09 0:45 [PATCH/RFC] " Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 0:45 Nathan Lynch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1239238567.14883.2.camel@nigel-laptop \
--to=ncunningham-lkml-vwkgxi2cts+6c6uetoj/ea@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ntl-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.