[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140516075421.GL11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 09:54:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:24:35PM +0800, Michael wang wrote:
> Hey, Mike :)
>
> On 05/16/2014 10:51 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 10:23 +0800, Michael wang wrote:
> >
> >> But we found that one difference when group get deeper is the tasks of
> >> that group become to gathered on CPU more often, some time all the
> >> dbench instances was running on the same CPU, this won't happen for l1
> >> group, may could explain why dbench could not get CPU more than 100% any
> >> more.
> >
> > Right. I played a little (sane groups), saw load balancing as well.
>
> Yeah, now we found that even l2 groups will face the same issue, allow
> me to re-list the details here:
Hmm, that _should_ more or less work and does indeed suggest there's
something iffy.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists