From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, pj@sgi.com
Subject: fair group scheduler not so fair?
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:59:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4834B75A.40900@nortel.com> (raw)
I just downloaded the current git head and started playing with the fair
group scheduler. (This is on a dual cpu Mac G5.)
I created two groups, "a" and "b". Each of them was left with the
default share of 1024.
I created three cpu hogs by doing "cat /dev/zero > /dev/null". One hog
(pid 2435) was put into group "a", while the other two were put into
group "b".
After giving them time to settle down, "top" showed the following:
2438 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 99.5 0.0 4:02.82 cat
2435 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 65.9 0.0 3:30.94 cat
2437 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 34.3 0.0 3:14.89 cat
Where pid 2435 should have gotten a whole cpu worth of time, it actually
only got 66% of a cpu. Is this expected behaviour?
I then redid the test with two hogs in one group and three hogs in the
other group. Unfortunately, the cpu shares were not equally distributed
within each group. Using a 10-sec interval in "top", I got the following:
2522 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 52.2 0.0 1:33.38 cat
2523 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 48.9 0.0 1:37.85 cat
2524 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 37.0 0.0 1:23.22 cat
2525 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 32.6 0.0 1:22.62 cat
2559 cfriesen 20 0 3800 392 336 R 28.7 0.0 0:24.30 cat
Do we expect to see upwards of 9% relative unfairness between processes
within a class?
I tried messing with the tuneables in /proc/sys/kernel
(sched_latency_ns, sched_migration_cost, sched_min_granularity_ns) but
was unable to significantly improve these results.
Any pointers would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris
next reply other threads:[~2008-05-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-21 23:59 Chris Friesen [this message]
2008-05-22 6:56 ` fair group scheduler not so fair? Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-22 20:02 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-22 20:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-22 20:18 ` Li, Tong N
2008-05-22 21:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-23 0:17 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-23 7:44 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-23 9:42 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-23 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-23 10:19 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-23 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-05-27 17:15 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-27 18:13 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-28 16:33 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-28 18:35 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-28 18:47 ` Dhaval Giani
2008-05-29 2:50 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-29 16:46 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-29 16:47 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-29 21:30 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-30 6:43 ` Dhaval Giani
2008-05-30 10:21 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-05-30 11:36 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-06-02 20:03 ` Chris Friesen
2008-05-27 17:28 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
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=4834B75A.40900@nortel.com \
--to=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pj@sgi.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