From: Michael wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Subject: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:34:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <537192D3.5030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
During our testing, we found that the cpu.shares doesn't work as
expected, the testing is:
X86 HOST:
12 CPU
GUEST(KVM):
6 VCPU
We create 3 GUEST, each with 1024 shares, the workload inside them is:
GUEST_1:
dbench 6
GUEST_2:
stress -c 6
GUEST_3:
stress -c 6
So by theory, each GUEST will got (1024 / (3 * 1024)) * 1200% == 400%
according to the group share (3 groups are created by virtual manager on
same level, and they are the only groups heavily running in system).
Now if only GUEST_1 running, it got 300% CPU, which is 1/4 of the whole
CPU resource.
So when all 3 GUEST running concurrently, we expect:
GUEST_1 GUEST_2 GUEST_3
CPU% 300% 450% 450%
That is the GUEST_1 got the 300% it required, and the unused 100% was
shared by the rest group.
But the result is:
GUEST_1 GUEST_2 GUEST_3
CPU% 40% 580% 580%
GUEST_1 failed to gain the CPU it required, and the dbench inside it
dropped a lot on performance.
So is this results expected (I really do not think so...)?
Or that imply the cpu-cgroup got some issue to be fixed?
Any comments are welcomed :)
Regards,
Michael Wang
next reply other threads:[~2014-05-13 3:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-13 3:34 Michael wang [this message]
2014-05-13 9:47 ` [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays? Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-13 13:36 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-13 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 3:27 ` Michael wang
2014-05-14 7:36 ` Michael wang
2014-05-14 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-15 3:46 ` Michael wang
2014-05-15 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-15 8:46 ` Michael wang
2014-05-15 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-15 9:35 ` Michael wang
2014-05-15 11:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 2:23 ` Michael wang
2014-05-16 2:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-16 4:24 ` Michael wang
2014-05-16 7:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 8:15 ` Michael wang
2014-06-10 8:56 ` Michael wang
2014-06-10 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-11 6:13 ` Michael wang
2014-06-11 8:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-11 9:18 ` Michael wang
2014-06-23 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-24 3:10 ` Michael wang
2014-05-16 7:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 3:21 ` Michael wang
2014-05-14 3:16 ` Michael wang
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=537192D3.5030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).