[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315937261.4226.5.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:07:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 23:24 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> I guess the additional "system" time
> can't be accounted for easily by the tick-based accounting system we
> have. I agree there could be other un-observed side-effects of increased
> load-balance frequency (like workload performance) that I haven't noticed.
Yeah, very hard, its the tick that starts the balancer, so it would have
to last longer than a tick to be noticed, very unlikely.
We should implement full blown CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING,.. except I
bet that once we do that people will want it enabled and I'm pretty sure
people also don't want to pay the price for it... :-)
--
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