[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47395277.1060006@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:59:59 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Revert for cgroups CPU accounting subsystem patch
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 11:00 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Right now, one of the limitations of the CPU controller is that
>> the moment you create another control group, the bandwidth gets
>> divided by the default number of shares. We can't create groups
>> just for monitoring.
>
> Could we get around this with, say, a flag that always treats a CFS
> schedulable entity as having a weight equal to the number of runnable
> tasks in it? So CPU bandwidth would be shared between groups in
> proportion to the number of runnable tasks, which would distribute the
> cycles approximately equivalently to them all being separate
> schedulable entities.
>
I think it's a good hack, but not sure about the complexity to implement
the code. I worry that if the number of tasks increase (say run into
thousands for one or more groups and a few groups have just a few
tasks), we'll lose out on accuracy.
>> cpu_acct fills this gap.
>
> Agreed, but not in the right way IMO.
>
I think we already have the code, we need to make it more useful and
reusable.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
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