[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315922402.5977.10.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:00:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.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>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/18] CFS Bandwidth Control v7.2
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 16:10 +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> In other words, I'd like to know if your code (or the scheduler code)
> tries to gather all tasks of the same cgroup on such a subset of all
> CPUs
No
> so that the tasks can't execute less CPUs without losing quota
> during each period.
what?!
> And if not, are you going to address the issue?
and no.
There is nothing special about being part of a cgroup that warrants
that, as for pipes the scheduler already tries to pull the waking task
to the cpu of the waker if possible (or an idle cache sibling).
--
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