From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] CFS Bandwidth Control
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:48:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100216061818.GB3492@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100213025417.23325.90048.stgit@kitami.corp.google.com>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 06:54:52PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> Todo:
> -----
> - hierarchal nr_tasks_running accounting:
> This is a deficiency currently shared with SCHED_RT rate limiting. When
> entities is throttled the running tasks it owns are not subtracted from
> rq->nr_running. This then results in us missing idle_balance() due to
> phantom tasks and load balancer weight per task calculations being
> incorrect.
>
> This code adds complexity which was both increasing the complexity of the
> initial review for this patchset and truly probably best reviewed
> independently of this feature's scope. To that end we'll post a separate
> patch for this issue against the current RT rate-limiting code and merge any
> converged on approach here as appropriate.
I had tried updating rq->nr_running in my v2 patchset
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/30/117, http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/30/119)
But since I felt that it added a lot of complexity, I removed it
subsequently in v3 (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/9/65) and kept it similar
to RT.
>
> - throttle statistics:
> Some statistics regarding the frequency and duration of throttling
> definitely in order.
Please take a look at some of the throttling related stats I am collecting
in my patchset.
Regards,
Bharata.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-16 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-13 2:54 [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] CFS Bandwidth Control Paul Turner
2010-02-13 2:54 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] sched: introduce primitives to account for CFS bandwidth tracking Paul
2010-02-25 8:14 ` Bharata B Rao
2010-02-25 10:30 ` Paul Turner
2010-02-26 11:52 ` Bharata B Rao
2010-02-13 2:55 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] sched: accumulate per-cfs_rq cpu usage Paul
2010-02-13 2:55 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed their local quota Paul
2010-02-13 2:55 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/4] sched: unthrottle cfs_rq(s) who ran out of quota at period refresh Paul
2010-02-16 5:39 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] CFS Bandwidth Control Bharata B Rao
2010-02-16 6:18 ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
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=20100216061818.GB3492@in.ibm.com \
--to=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=dhaval.giani@gmail.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
--cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ncrao@google.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox