lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 01/17] sched: mix tasks and groups
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This patch allows tasks and groups to exist in the same cfs_rq. With this
> change the CFS group scheduling follows a 1/(M+N) model from a 1/(1+N)
> fairness model where M tasks and N groups exist at the cfs_rq level.
>
> [a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl: rt bits]
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/sched_fair.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> kernel/sched_rt.c | 15 ++++++++------
> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-2.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -273,18 +273,23 @@ struct task_group {
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_SCHED
> /* Default task group's sched entity on each cpu */
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_entity, init_sched_entity);
> /* Default task group's cfs_rq on each cpu */
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cfs_rq, init_cfs_rq) ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> +#endif


I am trying to understand the change this brings for semantics of RT-scheduling.

With this change, /cgroup will be seen as the parent group of all other
groups (say: /cgroup/A, /cgroup/B etc). Is that correct?

If so, the check in __rt_schedulable() needs a change as well, which assumes
that all task groups form a flat hierarchy.

For example: lets say that init_task_group (/cgroup in this case) had the
default rt_bandwidth of 95% (global_rt_runtime()). A child group under it
(/cgroup/A) is created. If user tries to assign it a rt-bandwidth of
50%, then AFAICS, it will fail with current code, whereas it shouldn't
(because by giving /cgroup/A 50% bandwidth, we are not really exceeding
the globally allowed RT bandwidth of 95%, since /cgroup/A is a child of
/cgroup).

--
Regards,
vatsa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-01 14:05    [W:0.491 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site