lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] CPU controller V1 - split runqueue
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:38:00PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Srivatsa,
>
> I suggest to split existing runqueue structure
> into 2 pieces: physical cpu (sd, ...) and
> virtual cpu (essentially a runqueue - array, nr_running, loac etc.)
>
> Then replace all references to cpu as int with vcpu_t pointer.

That's going to be a massive change! If I understand you correctly,
things like get_cpu() return virtual CPU number rather than the
corresponding "physical" CPU (the later is anyway a misnomer on
virtualized platforms)? Also we have get_cpu() now reading some structure and be
able to tell which CPU a task is running. Now with virtual CPUs, another
level of translation is needed? Wonder what the performance impact of
that would be ..

> What advantages does it give?
> 1. it isolates Linux std scheduler code for scheduling
> tasks inside runqueues, while adds possibility
> to add cleanly more high-level scheduler, which can select
> runqueues to run (lets call it "process groups scheduler" - PGS).
> 2. runqueues can run on arbitrary physical CPUs if needed
> which helps to solve balancing problem on SMP.

How do you see the relation between load-balance done thr sched-domain
heirarchy today and what will be done thr' virtal runqueues?

> 3. it allows naturally to use different PGS algorithms
> on top of Linux one. e.g. yours algorithm (probobalistic) or
> fair scheduling algorithms like SFQ, EEVDF, BVT with more
> predictable parameters of QoS.
> 4. it will help us to get to the consensus and commit this work
> into mainstream, because different PGS with different properties
> will be possible.
>
> Part of this idea is implemented in OpenVZ scheduler and in some
> regards looks very much like your work, so I think if you like the idea
> we can eloborate.
>
> What do you think?

I believe hypervisors like Xen have a similar approach (virtualing CPU
resource and running a virtual CPU on any available physical CPU). The
worry I have applying this to Linux kernel scheduler is in terms of its
invasiveness and thus general acceptability. I will however let the maintainers
decide on that. Sending some patches also probably will help measure this
"invasiveness/acceptability".

I had another question related to real-time tasks. How do you control
CPU usage of real-time tasks in different containers (especially if they
are SCHED_FIFO types)? Do they get capped at the bandwidth provided to
the container?

Also do you take any special steps to retain interactivity?

--
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: 2006-08-28 05:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans