Re: [PATCH v2] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth

["Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 12:38:23PM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> (cc'ing Michal, Christian and Li for context)

Thanks.

> > We're in the process of transitioning to using bw instead for this
> > instead in order to maintain parallelism. Fixing bw is definitely
> > going to be useful, but I'm afraid we'll still likely have some issues
> > from low throughput for non-bw reasons (some of which we can't
> > directly control, since arbitrary jobs can spin up and configure their
> > hierarchy/threads in antagonistic ways, in effect pushing out the
> > latency of some of their threads).
> 
> Yeah, thanks for the explanation. Making the lock more granular is tedious
> but definitely doable. I don't think I can work on it in the near future but
> will keep it on mind. If anyone's interested in attacking it, please be my
> guest.

From my experience, throttling while holding kernel locks (not just
cgroup_mutex) causes more trouble than plain cgroup_mutex scalability
currently.
But I acknowledge the latter issue too.

Michal

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]