[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338814063.7356.192.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:47:43 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
roland@...nel.org, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 13:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Isn't this poking the wrong spot?
>
> Yes and no, the use-case is definitely so-so.. However, even if a FIFO
> task were to only consume 95% of time, we might still want to balance
> things differently, and I don't think we do the sane thing there either.
You need a good reason to run RT, and being able to starve others to
death ain't it, so I don't see a good reason to care about the 95% case
enough to fiddle with load balancing to accommodate the oddball case.
Agreed it is a hole, but it's one dug by root. If you need so much CPU
that you can and will starve SCHED_OTHER to death, you need isolation
from SCHED_OTHER, lest they do evil things to your deadline, just as
much as they desperately need protection from your evil CPU usage ;-)
-Mike
--
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