[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1247864134.17553.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:55:34 -0500
From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>, stable@...nel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] sched: fix nr_uninterruptible accounting of frozen
tasks really
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 18:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 08:22 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
>
> > The job scheduler in question does not use FROZEN as a transient state and
> > does not use checkpoint/restart at all since c/r is still a work in progress.
Right, the job scheduler uses the cgroup freezer as a mechanism to
preempt a low priority job for a higher priority job. (It had used
SIGSTOP in the past.) So in this scenario a frozen cgroup may remain in
that state for a while. Load average is consulted as a measure of
system utilization.
> > Even when used for power management it seems wrong to count frozen tasks
> > towards the loadavg since they aren't using CPU time or waiting for IO.
>
> You're abusing it for _WHAT_?
I think Matt was referring to system-wide suspend/resume/hibernate, not
a behavior of the job scheduler, if that's your concern.
--
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