Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller
From: MAEDA Naoaki
Date: Fri Apr 28 2006 - 03:26:42 EST
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:59:49 +0200
Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:48 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:25:35 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:37 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> > > > Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > This patchset adds a CPU resource controller on top of Resource Groups.
> > > > The CPU resource controller manages CPU resources by scaling timeslice
> > > > allocated for each task without changing the algorithm of the O(1)
> > > > scheduler.
> > > >
> > > > Please consider these for inclusion in -mm tree.
> > >
> > > This patch set professes to be a resource controller, yet 100% of high
> > > priority tasks are uncontrolled. Distribution of CPU among high
> > > priority tasks isn't important, but distribution of what they leave
> > > behind is?
> > Do you mean niced tasks are uncontrolled by the controller?
> > TASK_INTERACTIVEs are left untouched intentionally, but niced tasks
> > are also controlled.
> Until they attain interactive status. Note that attaining this status
> requires only one sleep, and once attained, it can be sustained. I
> don't know what the current exact numbers are, but until recently, the
> numbers were that once sleep_avg became full, a non-niced task could
> sustain ~95% cpu indefinitely.
> You simply cannot ignore interactive tasks. At the very least, you have
> to disallow requeue if the resource limit has been exceeded, otherwise,
> this patch set is non-functional.
It can be easily implemented on top of the current code. Do you know a good
sample program that is judged as interactive but consumes lots of cpu?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/