lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: fair group scheduler not so fair?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 05:59:22PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> I then redid the test with two hogs in one group and three hogs in the
> other group. Unfortunately, the cpu shares were not equally distributed
> within each group. Using a 10-sec interval in "top", I got the following:

I ran with this combination (2 in Group a and 3 in Group b) on top of the
experimental patch I sent and here's what I get:

4350 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 53.8 0.0 52:27.54 1 hoga
4542 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 49.3 0.0 3:39.76 0 hoga
4352 root 20 0 1384 232 176 R 36.0 0.0 26:53.50 1 hogb
4351 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 32.0 0.0 26:47.54 0 hogb
4543 root 20 0 1384 232 176 R 29.0 0.0 2:03.62 0 hogb

Note that fairness (using load balance approach we have currently) works
over a long window. Usually I observe with "top -d30". Higher the
asymmetry of task-load distribution, longer it takes to converge to
fairness.

--
Regards,
vatsa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-27 19:21    [W:0.228 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site