[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337773798.27020.175.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:49:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: readd fair sleepers for server systems
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:32 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > Why is this, is this some weird interaction with your hypervisor?
>
> It is not completely analyzed, as soon as debugging goes out of Linux it
> can be kind of complex even internally.
Is there significant steal time in these workloads? If so, does it help
if you implement
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING/paravirt_steal_rq_enabled for s390?
(although I guess we'd better loose the paravirt part of the name then).
This 'feature' subtracts steal time from the task-clock so that the
scheduler doesn't consider a task to be running when the vcpu wasn't
running as well.
Not doing that (current situation) could result in over-active
preemption because we think a task ran significantly longer than it
actually did. Same for sleeper fairness, we might think a task slept
very long (and give a bigger boost) when in fact it didn't.
--
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