question: cpu.shares and parent-children relationshp in the hierarchy

question: cpu.shares and parent-children relationshp in the hierarchy

[Michal Soltys]

Hi,

I've been testing how this works in practice, and I have few 
configurations I'm not sure why they behave the way they do.

All the test processes just drain cpu with an infinite loop. 
All of them are pinned to single cpu core. cgroup with just 
-o cpu is mounted, and the scenario is following (in brackets 
- assigned cpu.shares):

    root(1024)
   /          \
Y(1024)      X(4096)
            /       \
         A(8192)   B(8192)

Four test processes sit in X, Y, A and B; root is "empty"
(effectively idle processes). The one in Y expectedly gets 
20% cpu, A and B divide the cpu share equally, but - why do 
the process in X gets only ~4.75% ? Essentially:

11:36:45 PM       PID    %usr %system  %guest    %CPU   CPU  Command
11:36:50 PM     29472   20.00    0.00    0.00   20.00     1  loadme(y)
11:36:50 PM     29473    4.80    0.00    0.00    4.80     1  loadme(x)
11:36:50 PM     29474   37.60    0.00    0.00   37.60     1  loadme(a)
11:36:50 PM     29475   37.60    0.00    0.00   37.60     1  loadme(b)

In the other words - what is the intended relation between ancestor's 
cpu.shares and its children ? Looking at the example above, it looks 
like the task in X should get 4/5 (root unused, 1/5 for Y, the rest 
for X subtree) * 1/5 (from assigned values in X subtree, 
4096/20480) - but that would be ~16%.

The task in X behaves like if X had 1024 - maybe it's always assumed 
when parent-children relationship is considered, and the actual value 
is used only when dividing cpu between siblings ?

If I move the test task from X to root, the situation will change to:

11:56:49 PM       PID    %usr %system  %guest    %CPU   CPU  Command
11:56:54 PM     29472   16.60    0.00    0.00   16.60     1  loadme(y)
11:56:54 PM     29473   16.60    0.00    0.00   16.60     1  loadme(root)
11:56:54 PM     29474   33.20    0.20    0.00   33.40     1  loadme(a)
11:56:54 PM     29475   33.40    0.00    0.00   33.40     1  loadme(b)

In this scenario, everything seems as expected - 1/6 for Y, 1/6 for root, 
4/6 for X subtree.

Re: question: cpu.shares and parent-children relationshp in the hierarchy

[Yong Zhang]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Michal Soltys <soltys@ziu.info> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been testing how this works in practice, and I have few
> configurations I'm not sure why they behave the way they do.
>
> All the test processes just drain cpu with an infinite loop.
> All of them are pinned to single cpu core. cgroup with just
> -o cpu is mounted, and the scenario is following (in brackets
> - assigned cpu.shares):
>
>    root(1024)
>   /          \
> Y(1024)      X(4096)
>            /       \        \
>         A(8192)   B(8192)  task-x(1024)

I assume loadme(x) is an process of group X, like above.

If so, there isn't any problem with it.

Thanks,
Yong

>
> Four test processes sit in X, Y, A and B; root is "empty"
> (effectively idle processes). The one in Y expectedly gets
> 20% cpu, A and B divide the cpu share equally, but - why do
> the process in X gets only ~4.75% ? Essentially:
>
> 11:36:45 PM       PID    %usr %system  %guest    %CPU   CPU  Command
> 11:36:50 PM     29472   20.00    0.00    0.00   20.00     1  loadme(y)
> 11:36:50 PM     29473    4.80    0.00    0.00    4.80     1  loadme(x)
> 11:36:50 PM     29474   37.60    0.00    0.00   37.60     1  loadme(a)
> 11:36:50 PM     29475   37.60    0.00    0.00   37.60     1  loadme(b)
>
> In the other words - what is the intended relation between ancestor's
> cpu.shares and its children ? Looking at the example above, it looks
> like the task in X should get 4/5 (root unused, 1/5 for Y, the rest
> for X subtree) * 1/5 (from assigned values in X subtree,
> 4096/20480) - but that would be ~16%.
>
> The task in X behaves like if X had 1024 - maybe it's always assumed
> when parent-children relationship is considered, and the actual value
> is used only when dividing cpu between siblings ?
>
> If I move the test task from X to root, the situation will change to:
>
> 11:56:49 PM       PID    %usr %system  %guest    %CPU   CPU  Command
> 11:56:54 PM     29472   16.60    0.00    0.00   16.60     1  loadme(y)
> 11:56:54 PM     29473   16.60    0.00    0.00   16.60     1  loadme(root)
> 11:56:54 PM     29474   33.20    0.20    0.00   33.40     1  loadme(a)
> 11:56:54 PM     29475   33.40    0.00    0.00   33.40     1  loadme(b)
>
> In this scenario, everything seems as expected - 1/6 for Y, 1/6 for root,
> 4/6 for X subtree.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



-- 
Only stand for myself