[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101112032405.657789056@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:24:05 -0800
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pierre Bourdon <pbourdon@...ellency.fr>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Karl Rister <kmr@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [tg_shares_up rewrite v3 00/11] reduce overhead for tg->shares distribution
--
This is v3 of the tg_shares_up re-write previously posted at:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/16/17
It corrects compile errors in the !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED present in v2 posted
yesterday (Thanks to David Miller for catching this) as well as a race in the
destruction of a task_group.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/10/618
The key idea behind this patchset is an idea of Peter Zijlstra'a to compute
global loads as a function of local averages, avoiding the cpu-cpu interactions
which previously plagued tg_shares_up.
Not much 'material' has changed since v1 since results seem favourable/stable.
Changes:
v3
sched-rework-tg_shares_up.patch
- remove lint: {max,min}_sched_shares_ratelimit from sysctl.c
sched-tg-ondemand.patch
- (bug fix) fix synchronization on leaf_cfs_rq_list removal during task_group reclaim.
- fix !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED build
- fix comment on what task_group_lock protects
sched-tg-global_update_load.patch
- add missing arguments to update_cfs_load() in !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED case
v2 (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/10/618)
sched-rework-tg_shares_up.patch
- (bug fix) use owning tg->shares value in effective_load
- remove redundant cfs_rq_of() in {enqueue,dequeue}_entity
sched-tg-add-shares_window_sysctl.patch
- update comment on sysctl interpretation
sched-tg-fix-update_cfs_load.patch
- update comment to reflect periods instead of foldings (more intuitive)
Some motivation again:
24 thread Intel box, 150 active cgroups, multiple threads/group, system load at ~90% (sample size=10s):
tip:
2.64% [k] tg_shares_up <!>
0.15% [k] __set_se_shares
patched:
0.02% [k] update_cfs_load
0.01% [k] update_cpu_load
0.00% [k] update_cfs_shares
Fairness coverage for the above at: http://rs5.risingnet.net/~pjt/patches/shares_data_v1.txt
Thanks,
- Paul
--
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