Chris Friesen wrote:
Chris Snook wrote:
I don't think Chris's scenario has much bearing on your patch. What
he wants is to have a task that will always be running, but can't
monopolize either CPU. This is useful for certain realtime workloads,
but as I've said before, realtime requires explicit resource
allocation. I don't think this is very relevant to SCHED_FAIR balancing.
I'm not actually using the scenario I described, its just sort of a
worst-case load-balancing thought experiment.
What we want to be able to do is to specify a fraction of each cpu for
each task group. We don't want to have to affine tasks to particular cpus.
A fraction of *each* CPU, or a fraction of *total* CPU? Per-cpu granularity
doesn't make anything more fair. You've got a big bucket of MIPS you want to
divide between certain groups, but it shouldn't make a difference which CPUs
those MIPS come from, other than the fact that we try to minimize overhead
induced by migration.
This means that the load balancer must be group-aware, and must trigger
a re-balance (possibly just for a particular group) as soon as the cpu
allocation for that group is used up on a particular cpu.
If I have two threads with the same priority, and two CPUs, the scheduler will
put one on each CPU, and they'll run happily without any migration or balancing.
It sounds like you're saying that every X milliseconds, you want both to
expire, be forbidden from running on the current CPU for the next X
milliseconds, and then migrated to the other CPU. There's no gain in fairness
here, and there's a big drop in performance.
I suggested local fairness as a means to achieve global fairness because it
could reduce overhead, and by adding the margin of error at each level in the
locality hierarchy, you can get an algorithm which naturally tolerates the level
of unfairness beyond which it is impossible to optimize. Strict local fairness
for its own sake doesn't accomplish anything that's better than global fairness.
-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
