From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754948Ab0JNJMy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:12:54 -0400
Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:58242 "EHLO
	canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752935Ab0JNJMx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:12:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed
 their local quota
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com>,
        Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
        Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
        Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
        Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101013153421.b38a5c6f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20101012074910.GA9893@in.ibm.com>
	 <20101012075202.GD9893@in.ibm.com>
	 <20101013153421.b38a5c6f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:12:22 +0200
Message-ID: <1287047542.29097.169.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:34 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> cpu.share and bandwidth control can't be used simultaneously or...
> is this fair ? I'm not familiar with scheduler but this allows boost this tg.
> Could you add a brief documentaion of a spec/feature. in the next post ?

Like explained, shares control the proportional distribution of time
between groups, bandwidth puts a limit on how much time a group can
take. It can cause a group to receive less than its fair share, but
never more.

There is, however, a problem with all this, and that is that all this
explicit idling of tasks can lead to a form of priority inversion.
Regular preemptive scheduling already suffers from this, but explicitly
idling tasks exacerbates the situation.

You basically get to add the longest induced idle time to all your lock
hold times.