lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task migration
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 20:08 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: 
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> [2012-06-04 16:30:34]:
>
> > Yeah, this is true, it is a latency source and a fairness violation.
> > Slow path balance consideration does make some sense to me.
> >
> > But, if you have an RT requirement, you can't afford to mix unknown
> > entities, nor over-commit etc. A realtime application will assign all
> > resources, so the load balancer becomes essentially unemployed. No?
> > Non critical worker-bees may be allowed to bounce around in say a
> > cpuset, but none of the CPUs which do critical work will ever be
> > over-committed, else application just lost the war. In that regard,
> > twiddling the load balancer to accommodate strange sounding case still
> > seems wrong to me.
>
> Btw the patch should help non-rt case as well (where a high
> priority SCHED_OTHER is hogging cpu while low-priority SCHED_OTHER task
> on that same cpu suffers as we choose not to move it to another
> cpu (because of the way balance_cpu based load balance is written).

But high priority SCHED_OTHER tasks do not hog the CPU, they get their
fair share as defined by the user.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-04 17:21    [W:0.059 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site