[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316421184.1511.0.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:33:04 +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 Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:22 +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> But communicating tasks do not necessarily wake each other even if
> they exchange data through the pipe. And of course, if they use shared
> memory (e.g. threads), it is not obligatory at all. Also, the
> wake-affine path is cpu-load aware, i.e. it tries not to overload a
> cpu it is going to wake a task on. For instance, if we run a context
> switch test on an idle host, the two tasks will be executing on
> different cpus although it is better to execute them together on the
> same cpu.
This is not a problem specific to cgroups, and thus the solution
shouldn't ever live as something related to cgroups.
--
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