[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110913181245.GN11100@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:42:45 +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 20:03:04]:
> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 23:24 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Fyi, we have added additional levels to cgroup setup
> > (/Level1/Level2/C1/C1_1 etc) to mimic cgroup hierarchy for VMS as
> > created by libvirt.
>
> The deeper you nest the bigger the numerical problems get..
>
> Also, can you please stop using virt crap and focus on useful
> things? :-)
That unfortunately is the target environment where we want this working
(want to cap VMs under KVM) :-) For simplicity, we have been playing
with non-VM based testcase ..
> Start with simple cases of single depth groups.
We did try with single level and "extra" large proportional
shares (10k * NR_TASKS if I recall)..I don't think they made any
difference ..will re-check though.
- 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