Re: [ RFC, PATCH 1/5 ] CPU controller - base changes

[Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>]

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Srivatsa,
>
> AFAICS, you wanted to go the way we used in OpenVZ - 2-level scheduling.
> However, you don't do any process balancing between runqueues taking 
> into account
> other groups.

The plan is to do load balancing using the smpnice feature, which is yet to be 
worked on

From vatsa's comments

	"Works only on UP for now (boot with maxcpus=1). IMO group-aware SMP
	 load-balancing can be met using smpnice feature. I will work on this
	 feature next."

> What do you think about a full runqueue virtualization, so that
> first level CPU scheduler could select task-group on any basis and then
> arbitrary runqueue was selected for running?

The patch selects the task group first, based on priority. From the patch

"+    /* Pick a task group first */
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPUMETER "

Did I miss something?

> Thanks,
> Kirill
> P.S. BTW, this patch doesn't allow hierarchy in CPU controler.


--

	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
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/