[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 11:39:48]:

> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:33 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > 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?

- vatsa

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-13 13:31    [W:0.124 / U:0.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site