[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45BA4B57.1070604@nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:41:27 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: riel@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Fair-user scheduler
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Current Linux CPU scheduler doesnt recognize process aggregates while
> allocating bandwidth. As a result of this, an user could simply spawn large
> number of processes and get more bandwidth than others.
>
> Here's a patch that provides fair allocation for all users in a system.
>
> Some benchmark numbers with and without the patch applied follows:
>
>
> user "vatsa" user "guest"
> (make -s -j4 bzImage) (make -s -j20 bzImage)
>
> 2.6.20-rc5 472.07s (real) 257.48s (real)
> 2.6.20-rc5+fairsched 766.74s (real) 766.73s (real)
As Kirill brought up, why does it take so much more time? Are you
thrashing the cache?
> - breaks O(1) (ouch!)
> Best way to avoid this is to split runqueue to be per-user and
> per-cpu, which I have not implemented to keep the patch simple.
Presumably this would be made generic, as in per-"group" rather than per
user?
> - Fairsched aware SMP load balance NOT addressed (yet)
This is kind of important, no?
Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists