[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101122062242.GE12043@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:52:42 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2010-11-19 12:49:36]:
> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 00:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > What overhead? The implementation of cgroups is actually already
> > hierarchical. 
> 
> 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.
>
> [ and that's with the .38 targeted code, current mainline is O(n ln(n))
> for load balancing and truly sucks on multi-socket ]
>
I can say that for memory, with hierarchies we account all the way up,
which can be a visible overhead, depending on how often you fault.
 
-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
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
 
