From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dhaval Giani Subject: Re: Cgroups RT scheduling Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:53:52 +0530 Message-ID: <20090911112352.GH4474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: Reply-To: Dhaval Giani Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Rolando Martins Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Peter Zijlstra List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org [Adding peterz to the cc] On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:49:52PM +0100, Rolando Martins wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to confirm the following: > cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right? > You cannot have tasks for sub-domain 2 to utilize bandwidth of > sub-domain 3, right? > > __1__ > / \ > 2 3 > (50% rt) (50% rt ) > > For my application domain;) it would be interesting to have > rt_runtime_ns as a min. of allocated rt and not a max. > Ex. If an application of domain 2 needs to go up to 100% and domain 3 > is idle, then it would be cool to let it utilize the full bandwidth. > (we also could have a hard upper limit in each sub-domain, like > hard_up=0.8, i.e. even if we could get 100%, we will only utilize > 80%). > As far as I understand, all RT group scheduling assures is a certain bandwidth which you cannot exceed in a given time period. It doesn't provide the guarantee (that I think you are looking for) that you want. Peter should be able to tell more about future plans. Thanks, -- regards, Dhaval