[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
    Here's an attempt to extend CFS (v13) to be fair at a group level, rather than
    just at task level. The patch is in a very premature state (passes
    simple tests, smp load balance not supported yet) at this point. I am sending
    it out early to know if this is a good direction to proceed.

    Salient points which needs discussion:

    1. This patch reuses CFS core to achieve fairness at group level also.

    To make this possible, CFS core has been abstracted to deal with generic
    schedulable "entities" (tasks, users etc).

    2. The per-cpu rb-tree has been split to be per-group per-cpu.

    schedule() now becomes two step on every cpu : pick a group first (from
    group rb-tree) and a task within that group next (from that group's task

    3. Grouping mechanism - I have used 'uid' as the basis of grouping for
    timebeing (since that grouping concept is already in mainline today).
    The patch can be adapted to a more generic process grouping mechanism
    (like later.

    Some results below, obtained on a 4way (with HT) Intel Xeon box. All
    number are reflective of single CPU performance (tests were forced to
    run on single cpu since load balance is not yet supported).

    uid "vatsa" uid "guest"
    (make -s -j4 bzImage) (make -s -j20 bzImage)

    2.6.22-rc1 772.02 sec 497.42 sec (real)
    2.6.22-rc1+cfs-v13 780.62 sec 478.35 sec (real)
    2.6.22-rc1+cfs-v13+this patch 776.36 sec 776.68 sec (real)

    [ An exclusive cpuset containing only one CPU was created and the
    compilation jobs of both users were run simultaneously in this cpuset ]

    I also disabled CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED and compared the results with

    uid "vatsa"
    make -s -j4 bzImage

    2.6.22-rc1+cfs-v13 395.57 sec (real)
    2.6.22-rc1+cfs-v13+this_patch 388.54 sec (real)

    There is no regression I can see (rather some improvement, which I can't
    understand atm). I will run more tests later to check this regression aspect.

    Request your comments on the future direction to proceed!

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-23 19:15    [W:0.030 / U:6.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site