[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1479901185.4306.38.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:39:45 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: documentation of the autogroup feature
On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 16:59 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │FIXME │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │The following is a little vague. Does it need to be │
> │made more precise? │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> The CFS scheduler employs an algorithm that distributes the CPU
> across task groups. As a result of this algorithm, the pro‐
> cesses in task groups that contain multiple CPU-intensive pro‐
> cesses are in effect disfavored by the scheduler.
Mmmm, they're actually equalized (modulo smp fairness goop), but I see
what you mean.
> A process's autogroup (task group) membership can be viewed via
> the file /proc/[pid]/autogroup:
>
> $ cat /proc/1/autogroup
> /autogroup-1 nice 0
>
> This file can also be used to modify the CPU bandwidth allo‐
> cated to a task group. This is done by writing a number in the
> "nice" range to the file to set the task group's nice value.
> The allowed range is from +19 (low priority) to -20 (high pri‐
> ority). Note that all values in this range cause a task group
> to be further disfavored by the scheduler, with -20 resulting
> in the scheduler mildy disfavoring the task group and +19
> greatly disfavoring it.
Group nice levels exactly work the same as task nice levels, ie
negative nice increases share, positive nice decreases it relative to
the default nice 0.
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │FIXME │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │Regarding the previous paragraph... My tests indi‐ │
> │cate that writing *any* value to the autogroup file │
> │causes the task group to get a lower priority.
(patchlet.. I'd prefer to whack the knob, but like the on/off switch,
it may be in use, so I guess we're stuck with it)
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │FIXME │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │Is the following correct? Does the statement need to │
> │be more precise? (E.g., in precisely which circum‐ │
> │stances does the use of cgroups override autogroup?) │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> The use of the cgroups(7) CPU controller overrides the effect
> of autogrouping.
Correct, autogroup defers to cgroups. Perhaps mention that moving a
task back to the root task group will result in the autogroup again
taking effect.
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │FIXME │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │What needs to be said about autogroup and real-time │
> │tasks? │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
That it does not group realtime tasks, they are auto-deflected to the
root task group.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists