| From: |
| Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> |
| To: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: |
| [RFC, PATCH 0/9] CPU Controller V2 |
| Date: |
| Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:55:20 +0530 |
| Cc: |
| linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>, sekharan@us.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, nagar@watson.ibm.com,
matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net |
Here's V2 of the token-based CPU controller I have been working on.
Changes since last version (posted at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/20/115):
- Task load was not changed when it moved between task-groups of
different quota (bug hit by Mike Galbraith).
- SMP load balance seems to work -much- better now wrt its awaress
of quota on each task-group. The trick was to go beyond the
max_load difference in __move_tasks and instead use the load
difference between two task-groups on the different cpus as
basis of pulling tasks.
- Better timeslice management, aimed at handling bursty
workloads better. Patch 3/9 has documentation on timeslice
management for various task-groups.
- Modified cpuset interface as per Paul Jackson's suggestions.
Some of the changes are:
- s/meter_cpu/cpu_meter_enabled
- s/cpu_quota/cpu_meter_quota
- s/FILE_METER_FLAG/FILE_CPU_METER_ENABLED
- s/FILE_METER_QUOTA/FILE_CPU_METER_QUOTA
- Dont allow cpu_meter_enabled to be turned on for an
"in-use" cpuset (which has tasks attached to it)
- Dont allow cpu_meter_quota to be changed for an
"in-use" cpuset (which has tasks attached to it)
Last two are temporary limitations until we figure out how
to get to a cpuset's task-list more easily.
Still on my todo list:
- Improved surplus cycles management. If A, B and C groups have
been given 50%, 30% and 20% quota respectively and if group B
is idle, B's quota has to be divided b/n A and C in the 5:2
proportion.
- Although load balance seems to be working nicely for the
testcases I have been running, I anticipate certain corner
cases which are yet to be worked out. Especially I need to
make sure some of the HT/MC optimizations are not broken.
Ingo/Nick, IMHO virtualizing cpu-runqueues approach to solve the controller
need is not a good idea, since:
- retaining existing load-balance optimizations for MC/SMT case is
going to be hard (has to be done at schedule time now)
- because of virtualization, two virtual cpus could end up running on
the same physical cpu which would affect the carefull SMP
optimizations put in place are all-over the kernel
- not to mention specialized apps which want to bind to CPUs for
performance reasons may behave badly in such a virtualized
environment.
Hence I have been pursuing more simpler approaches like in this patch.
Your comments/views on this are highly appreciated.
--
Regards,
vatsa