Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:58:52 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs unpinnede |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [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
| |