lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:23:04AM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> There are two problems as I see it:
>
> 1) If X1 grows to use 35% then X2's usage can't grow back from 15% until
> X1 relents. This is seems unpleasantly like cooperative scheduling
> within group X because if we take this to its limit X2 gets 0% and X1
> gets 50% -- effectively starving X2. What little I know about nice
> suggests this wouldn't really happen. However I think may highlight one
> case where fiddling with nice can't effectively control CPU usage.

I would expect task Z to adjust the limits of X1, X2 again when it notices
that X2 is "hungry". Until Z gets around to do that, what situation you
describe will be true. If Z is configured to run quite frequently (every
5 seconds?) to monitor/adjust limits, then this starvation (of X2) may be
avoided for longer periods?

> 2) Suppose we add group Y with tasks Y1-YM, Y's CPU usage is limited to
> 49%, each task of Y uses its limit of (M/49)% CPU, and the remaining 1%
> is left for Z (i.e. the single CPU is being used heavily). Z must use
> this 1% to read accounting information and adjust nice values as
> described above. If X1 spawns X3 we're likely in trouble -- Z might not
> get to run for a while but X3 has inheritted X1's nice value. If we
> return to our initial assumption that X1 and X2 are each using their
> limit of 25% then X3 will get limited to 25% too. The sum of Xi can now
> exceed 50% until Z is scheduled next. This only gets worse if there is
> an imbalance between X1 and X2 as described earlier. In that case group
> X could use 100% CPU until Z is scheduled! It also probably gets worse
> as load increases and the number of scheduling opportunities for Z
> decrease.
>
>
> I don't see how task Z could solve the second problem. As with UP, in
> SMP I think it depends on when Z (or one Z fixed to each CPU) is
> scheduled.

Wouldn't it help if Z is made to run with nice -20 (or with RT prio maybe),
so that when Z wants to run (every 5 or 10 seconds) it is run
immediately? This is assuming that Z can do its job of adjusting limits
for all tasks "quickly" (maybe 100-200 ms?).

>
> I think these are simple scenarios that demonstrate the problem with
> splitting resource management into accounting and control with userspace
> in between.
>
> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley

--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-06 12:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans