From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com,
luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load_balance to v2
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:54:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522133652.5996.2.camel@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf79b45e-7716-65af-03ca-7112dc367371@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:28 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> The sched_load_balance flag isn't something that is passed to the
> scheduler. It only only affects the CPU topology of the system. So I
> suspect that a process in the root cgroup will be load balanced among
> the CPUs in the one of the child cgroups.
Yes, among CPUs that remain part of topology (and intersect affinity).
> That doesn't look right unless
> we enforce that no process can be in the root cgroup in this case.
caveat: quite a few kthreads are nailed to the floor of root.
-Mike
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com,
luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load_balance to v2
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:54:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522133652.5996.2.camel@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf79b45e-7716-65af-03ca-7112dc367371@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 16:28 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> The sched_load_balance flag isn't something that is passed to the
> scheduler. It only only affects the CPU topology of the system. So I
> suspect that a process in the root cgroup will be load balanced among
> the CPUs in the one of the child cgroups.
Yes, among CPUs that remain part of topology (and intersect affinity).
> That doesn't look right unless
> we enforce that no process can be in the root cgroup in this case.
caveat: quite a few kthreads are nailed to the floor of root.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-27 6:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-21 16:21 [PATCH v6 0/2] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy Waiman Long
2018-03-21 16:21 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-21 16:21 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] " Waiman Long
2018-03-21 16:21 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-21 16:21 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load_balance to v2 Waiman Long
2018-03-21 16:21 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-22 8:41 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-22 8:41 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-22 21:50 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-22 21:50 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-23 7:59 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-23 7:59 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-23 18:44 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-23 18:44 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-26 12:47 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-26 12:47 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-26 20:28 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-26 20:28 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-27 6:17 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-27 6:17 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-27 6:54 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2018-03-27 6:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-27 14:02 ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-27 14:02 ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-27 14:23 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-27 14:23 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-28 6:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-28 6:57 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1522133652.5996.2.camel@gmx.de \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.