[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110913112852.GE7254@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:58:52 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs
unpinnede
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2011-09-13 11:39:48]:
> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:33 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > This is perhaps not optimal (as it may lead to more lock contentions), but
> > something to note for those who care for both capping and utilization in
> > equal measure!
>
> You meant lock inversion, which leads to more idle time :-)
I think 'cfs_b->lock' contention would go up significantly when reducing
sysctl_sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice, while for something like 'balancing' lock
(taken with SD_SERIALIZE set and more frequently when tuning down
max_interval?), yes it may increase idle time! Did you have any other
lock in mind when speaking of inversion?
- vatsa
--
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