[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1247921791.6597.5.camel@laptop>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:56:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
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 15:55 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> 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.
I think that this is an utterly broken use for it, if you want something
like that make a signal cgroup or something and deliver SIGSTOP to all
of them.
In other words, why is the freezer any better than the SIGSTOP approach?
> > > 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.
I understood he referred to the crazy use-case you mentioned above, IMHO
frozen should be a temporary state used for things like
snapshot/migrate.
I'm still very tempted to plain simply revert that original patch.
--
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