[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs unpinnede
    * Peter Zijlstra <> [2011-09-13 16:07:28]:

    > > > > This is perhaps not optimal (as it may lead to more lock contentions), but
    > > > > something to note for those who care for both capping and utilization in
    > > > > equal measure!
    > > >
    > > > You meant lock inversion, which leads to more idle time :-)
    > >
    > > I think 'cfs_b->lock' contention would go up significantly when reducing
    > > sysctl_sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice, while for something like 'balancing' lock
    > > (taken with SD_SERIALIZE set and more frequently when tuning down
    > > max_interval?), yes it may increase idle time! Did you have any other
    > > lock in mind when speaking of inversion?
    > I can't read it seems.. I thought you were talking about increasing the
    > period,

    Mm ..I brought up the increased lock contention with reference to this
    experimental result that I posted earlier:

    > Tuning min_interval and max_interval of various sched_domains to 1
    > and also setting sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us to 500 does cut down idle
    > time further to 2.7%

    Value of sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us was reduced from default of 5000us
    to 500us, which (along with reduction of min/max interval) helped cut down
    idle time further (3.9% -> 2.7%). I was commenting that this may not necessarily
    be optimal (as for example low 'sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us' could result
    in all cpus contending for cfs_b->lock very frequently).

    > which increases the time you force a task to sleep that's holding locks etc..

    Ideally all tasks should get capped at the same time, given that there is
    a global pool from which everyone pulls bandwidth? So while one vcpu/task
    (holding a lock) gets capped, other vcpus/tasks (that may want the same lock)
    should ideally not be running for long after that, avoiding lock inversion
    related problems you point out.

    I guess that we may still run into that with current implementation ..
    Basically global pool may have zero runtime left for current period,
    forcing a vcpu/task to be throttled, while there is surplus runtime in
    per-cpu pools, allowing some sibling vcpus/tasks to run for wee bit
    more, leading to lock-inversion related problems (more idling). That
    makes me think we can improve directed yield->capping interaction.
    Essentially when the target task of directed yield is capped, can the
    "yielding" task donate some of its bandwidth?

    - vatsa

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-13 18:23    [W:0.045 / U:14.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site