public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rolando Martins <rolando.martins@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup, balance RT bandwidth
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:03:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6a2d2e20903100803nb815353pc4d36c4c9f144d71@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1236695198.25234.329.camel@laptop>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:49 +0000, Rolando Martins wrote:
>> Just to confirm, cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right?
>
> It should. It should split the RT balance domain just the same.
>
>> You cannot have tasks for sub-domain 2 to utilize bandwidth of
>> sub-domain 3, right?
>
> If you disabled load-balancing on your root domain (1 below) then
> indeed, tasks from 2 will not be able to consume bandwidth from tasks in
> 3.
>
> The available bandwidth is related to the number of cpus in the balance
> domain.

cgroup
echo 1 > cpuset.sched_load_balance

cgroup/2
echo 0 > cpuset.mems
echo 0-2 > cpuset.cpus
echo 450000 > cpu.rt_runtime_us

cgroup/3
echo 0 > cpuset.mems
echo 3 > cpuset.cpus
echo 450000 > cpu.rt_runtime_us


I have a small test that uses a loop to utilize 100% cpu (SCHED_FIFO).
When I run 2 tests on cgroup/3, it only uses bandwidth from cpu 3
(100%), the balancing isn't happening.
As I use the SCHED_FIFO, the 2 processes run sequentially.

Can you check this? Maybe I am doing something wrong...



>
>>
>>                               __1__
>>                              /        \
>>                             2         3
>>                       (50% rt)  (50% rt )
>>
>> For my application domain it would be interesting to have
>> rt_runtime_ns as a min. of allocated rt and not a max.
>
>> Ex. If an application of domain 2 needs to go up to 100% and domain 3
>> is idle, then it would be cool to let it utilize the full bandwidth.
>
>> (we also could have a hard upper limit in each sub-domain, like
>> hard_up=0.8, i.e. even if we could get 100%, we will only utilize
>> 80%); in other words, rt having the same cpu bandwidth management behavior
>> as the "best-effort" tasks.
>>
>> Could this be done?
>
> Possibly, but since RT scheduling is all about determinism, I see no use
> in adding something best-effort -- that simply defeats the purpose.
>
>

      reply	other threads:[~2009-03-10 15:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-10 11:49 cgroup, balance RT bandwidth Rolando Martins
2009-03-10 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-10 15:03   ` Rolando Martins [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=b6a2d2e20903100803nb815353pc4d36c4c9f144d71@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=rolando.martins@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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