[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290171814.3840.52.camel@maggy.simson.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:03:34 -0700
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@...la.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, david@...g.hm,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 13:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 04:31 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > It must be nice to be that ignorant ;-) Speaking for the scheduler
> > > cgroup controller (that being the only one I actually know), most all
> > > the load-balance operations are O(n) in the number of active cgroups,
> > > and a lot of the cpu local schedule operations are O(d) where d is the
> > > depth of the cgroup tree.
> >
> > The same would apply to CPU autogroups, presumably?
>
> Yep, they're not special at all... uses the same mechanism.
The only difference is cost of creation and destruction, so cgroups and
autogroups suck boulders of slightly different diameter when creating
and/or destroying at high frequency.
-Mike
--
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