From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754686Ab0JQMRY (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:17:24 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:39054 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753042Ab0JQMRX (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:17:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:39:33 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: pjt@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Chris Friesen , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Pierre Bourdon , Bharata B Rao Subject: Re: [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 00/12] [RFC tg_shares_up - v1 00/12] Reducing cost of tg->shares distribution Message-ID: <20101017120933.GM13048@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20101016044349.830426011@google.com> <20101017052454.GA21273@balbir.in.ibm.com> <1287308331.1998.135.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1287308331.1998.135.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra [2010-10-17 11:38:51]: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 10:54 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > The results do sound interesting, could I recommend that you try to > > get 1000 cgroups or so, with half of them as active and half inactive. > > I'd also suggest tracking system and user time at the cgroup level. > > Sure, but do keep in mind that 500 active cgroups will always utterly > suck no matter what you do, it means we do indeed need to iterate 500 > cgroups for a lot of scheduler operations. > I agree in general, but in my case I've seen nasty things even when the groups were empty. -- Three Cheers, Balbir