From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: <mingo@elte.hu>, <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>,
<rostedt@goodmis.org>, <menage@google.com>, <rientjes@google.com>,
<tong.n.li@intel.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
<nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:36:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <479F01AF.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080129053005.bc7a11d7.pj@sgi.com>
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:30 AM, in message
<20080129053005.bc7a11d7.pj@sgi.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> Peter wrote, in reply to Peter ;):
>> > [ It looks to me it balances a group over the largest SD the current cpu
>> > has access to, even though that might be larger than the SD associated
>> > with the cpuset of that particular cgroup. ]
>>
>> Hmm, with a bit more thought I think that does indeed DTRT. Because, if
>> the cpu belongs to a disjoint cpuset, the highest sd (with
>> load-balancing enabled) would be that. Right?
>
> The code that defines sched domains, kernel/sched.c
> partition_sched_domains(),
> as called from the cpuset code in kernel/cpuset.c rebuild_sched_domains(),
> does not make use of the full range of sched_domain possibilities.
>
> In particular, it only sets up some non-overlapping set of sched domains.
> Every CPU ends up in at most a single sched domain.
>
> The original reason that one can't define overlapping sched domains via
> this cpuset interface (based off the cpuset 'sched_load_balance' flag)
> is that I didn't realize it was even possible to overlap sched domains
> when I wrote the cpuset code defining sched domains. And then when I
> later realized one could overlap sched domains, I (a) didn't see a need
> to do so, and (b) couldn't see how to do so via the cpuset interface
> without causing my brain to explode.
>
> Now, back to Peter's question, being a bit pedantic, CPUs don't belong
> to disjoint cpusets, except in the most minimal situation that there is
> only one cpuset covering all CPUs.
>
> Rather what happens, when you have need for some realtime CPUs, is that:
> 1) you turn off sched_load_balance on the top cpuset,
> 2) you setup your realtime cpuset as a child cpuset of the top cpuset
> such that its CPUs doesn't overlap any of its siblings, and
> 3) you turn off sched_load_balance in that realtime cpuset.
>
> At that point, sched domains are rebuilt, including providing a
> sched domain that just contains the CPUs in that realtime cpuset, and
> normal scheduler load balancing ceases on the CPUs in that realtime
> cpuset.
Hi Paul,
I am a bit confused as to why you disable load-balancing in the RT cpuset? It shouldn't be strictly necessary in order for the RT scheduler to do its job (unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to accomplish?). Do you do this because you *have* to in order to make real-time deadlines, or because its just a further optimization?
-Greg
>
>> [ Just a bit of a shame we have all cgroups represented on each cpu. ]
>
> Could you restate this -- I suspect it's obvious, but I'm oblivious ;).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-29 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-29 9:53 scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 10:01 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 11:13 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 11:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 11:53 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 12:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 12:36 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 12:03 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 12:52 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 13:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 11:30 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 11:34 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-29 12:12 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 15:57 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 16:33 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 15:50 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 16:51 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 17:21 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 19:04 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 20:36 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 21:02 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 21:07 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 15:36 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-01-29 16:28 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 16:42 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 19:37 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 20:28 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 20:56 ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-29 21:02 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-01-29 22:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-29 12:32 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-01-29 12:21 ` Paul Jackson
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=479F01AF.BA47.005A.0@novell.com \
--to=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tong.n.li@intel.com \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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