From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com>
Subject: Re: [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed their local quota
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:09:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110224163950.GB3000@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298562773.2428.230.camel@twins>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:52:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 21:15 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > While I admit that our load balancing semantics wrt thorttled entities are
> > not consistent (we don't allow pulling of tasks directly from throttled
> > cfs_rqs, while allow pulling of tasks from a throttled hierarchy as in the
> > above case), I am beginning to think if it works out to be advantageous.
> > Is there a chance that the task gets to run on other CPU where the hierarchy
> > isn't throttled since runtime is still available ?
>
> Possible yes, but the load-balancer doesn't know about that, not should
> it (its complicated, and broken, enough, no need to add more cruft to
> it).
>
> I'm starting to think you all should just toss all this and start over,
> its just too smelly.
Hmm... You have brought up 3 concerns:
1. Hierarchy semantics
If you look at the heirarchy semantics we currently have while ignoring the
load balancer interactions for a moment, I guess what we have is a reasonable
one.
- Only group entities are throttled
- Throttled entities are taken off the runqueue and hence they never
get picked up for scheduling.
- New or child entites are queued up to the throttled entities and not
further up. As I said in another thread, having the tree intact and correct
underneath the throttled entity allows us to rebuild the hierarchy during
unthrottling with least amount of effort.
- Group entities in a hierarchy are throttled independent of each other based
on their bandwidth specification.
2. Handling of throttled entities by load balancer
This definetely needs to improve and be more consistent. We can work on this.
3. per-cgroup vs global period specification
I thought per-cgroup specification would be most flexible and hence started
out with that. This would allow groups/workloads/VMs to define their
own bandwidth rate.
Let us know if you have other design concerns besides these.
Regards,
Bharata.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-24 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-16 3:18 [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 0/7] Introduction Paul Turner
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 1/7] sched: introduce primitives to account for CFS bandwidth tracking Paul Turner
2011-02-16 16:52 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-17 2:54 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-25 3:11 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 20:53 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 2/7] sched: accumulate per-cfs_rq cpu usage Paul Turner
2011-02-16 17:45 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-25 3:33 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed their local quota Paul Turner
2011-02-18 6:52 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-24 5:21 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-24 11:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-24 15:45 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-24 15:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-24 16:39 ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
2011-02-24 17:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-25 3:59 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 3:41 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 3:10 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 13:58 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-25 20:51 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-28 3:50 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-28 6:38 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-28 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-01 8:31 ` Paul Turner
2011-03-02 7:23 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-03-02 8:05 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 4/7] sched: unthrottle cfs_rq(s) who ran out of quota at period refresh Paul Turner
2011-02-18 7:19 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-18 8:10 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-23 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-24 7:04 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-24 11:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-26 0:02 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 5/7] sched: add exports tracking cfs bandwidth control statistics Paul Turner
2011-02-22 3:14 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-22 4:13 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-22 4:40 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 8:03 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-23 10:13 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-25 3:26 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 6/7] sched: hierarchical task accounting for SCHED_OTHER Paul Turner
2011-02-22 3:17 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 8:05 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-23 2:02 ` Hidetoshi Seto
2011-02-23 2:20 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-23 2:43 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-25 3:25 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 12:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-16 3:18 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 7/7] sched: add documentation for bandwidth control Paul Turner
2011-02-21 2:47 ` [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 0/7] Introduction Xiao Guangrong
2011-02-22 10:28 ` Bharata B Rao
2011-02-23 7:42 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-23 7:51 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-23 7:56 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-23 8:31 ` Bharata B Rao
[not found] ` <20110224161111.7d83a884@jacob-laptop>
2011-02-25 10:03 ` Paul Turner
2011-02-25 13:06 ` jacob pan
2011-03-08 3:57 ` Balbir Singh
2011-03-08 18:18 ` Jacob Pan
2011-03-09 10:12 ` Paul Turner
2011-03-09 21:57 ` jacob pan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110224163950.GB3000@in.ibm.com \
--to=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=dhaval.giani@gmail.com \
--cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
--cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ncrao@google.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome