[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> If you tried creating different cpusets and it still had them all end up
>> in the def_root_domain, something is very broken indeed. I will take a
>> look.
> I beleive that's the intended behaviour.
Heh...well, as the guy that wrote root-domans, I can definitively say
that is not the behavior that I personally intended ;)

> We always put cpus that are not
> balanced into null sched domains. This was done since day one (ie when
> cpuisol= option was introduced) and cpusets just followed the same convention.

It sounds like the problem with my code is that "null sched domain"
translates into "default root-domain" which is understandably unexpected
by Dimitri (and myself). Really I intended root-domains to become
associated with each exclusive/disjoint cpuset that is created. In a
way, non-balanced/isolated cpus could be modeled as an exclusive cpuset
with one member, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of the
root-domain code as it stands today. My primary concern was that
Dimitri reports that even creating a disjoint cpuset per cpu does not
yield an isolated root-domain per cpu. Rather they all end up in the
default root-domain, and this is not what I intended at all.

However, as a secondary goal it would be nice to somehow directly
support the "no-load-balance" option without requiring explicit
exclusive per-cpu cpusets to do it. The proper mechanism (IMHO) to
scope the scheduler to a subset of cpus (including only "self") is
root-domains so I would prefer to see the solution based on that.
However, today there is a rather tight coupling of root-domains and
cpusets, so this coupling would likely have to be relaxed a little bit
to get there.

There are certainly other ways to solve the problem as well. But seeing
as how I intended root-domains to represent the effective partition
scope of the scheduler, this seems like a natural fit in my mind until
its proven to me otherwise.


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-19 21:25    [W:0.074 / U:22.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site