[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98998672-4fab-2bb2-5f2d-fd6d83025036@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:52:43 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: Dave Chiluk <chiluk+linux@...eed.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: add burst to cgroup cpu bandwidth
controller
On 17/02/2020 22.56, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:55 PM <bsegall@...gle.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that starting with full burst runtime is best, though it
>> definitely seems likely to be one of those things where sometimes it's
>> what you want and sometimes it's not.
>
> We (Indeed) definitely want to start with a full burst bank in most
> cases, as this would help with slow/throttled start-up times for our
> Jitted and interpreter-based language applications. I agree that it
> would be nice to have it be configurable.
>
> Dave.
> fyi. Unfortunately, this e-mail may be temporarily turned off for the
> next few weeks, I apologize in advance for any bounced messages to me.
>
How much burst time you are planning to use?
On our side common setup should be like this:
cpu.cfs_period_us = 100ms
cpu.cfs_quota_us = 100ms * X
cpu.cfs_burst_us = clamp(400ms * X, 100ms, 100ms * NR_CPUS)
Where is X is a cpu power in cpus.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists