OpenVZ Forum - RDF feed
type: channel
items: Re: [PATCH 1/1, v9] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control

Re: [PATCH 1/1, v9] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control
type: item
description: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:12PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:00:15 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: <snip> > > Well, quite frankly, I'm not going to take this patch unless it gets > > an ACK from the scheduler people (which I'm guessing is not going to > > happen before hell freezes over). > > > > IOW, please find a better way to address the issue at hand. > > > We do have a real need that there is no exist feature in the kernel can > provide solution for. You want ACK from scheduler people because it has > impact on disabling irq? or you think scheduler should be the one that > provide the solution. I did try cpu subsystem, but it seems to be > limited to RT and certain scheduling policy e.g. RR and FIFO. I agree with Rafael. I think the scheduler should provide the solution and it can be done via modifications to the cpu cgroup subsystem. Yes, it only has the shares and rt-related files *right now*. However, Kame replied earlier with a link to some patches for extending it that introduce files with similar (granted: not the same) semantics: http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-10/msg0 4335.html I think you could build on that and help push those patches towards mainline along with your enhancements for reducing wakeups rather than modify the freezer cgroup subsystem. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containe rs
creator: Matt Helsley
date: 2011-02-16T03:23:21-00:00

Re: [PATCH 1/1, v9] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control
type: item
description: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:23:21 -0800 Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:12PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:00:15 +0100 > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Well, quite frankly, I'm not going to take this patch unless it > > > gets an ACK from the scheduler people (which I'm guessing is not > > > going to happen before hell freezes over). > > > > > > IOW, please find a better way to address the issue at hand. > > > > > We do have a real need that there is no exist feature in the kernel > > can provide solution for. You want ACK from scheduler people > > because it has impact on disabling irq? or you think scheduler > > should be the one that provide the solution. I did try cpu > > subsystem, but it seems to be limited to RT and certain scheduling > > policy e.g. RR and FIFO. > > I agree with Rafael. I think the scheduler should provide the solution > and it can be done via modifications to the cpu cgroup subsystem. > Yes, it only has the shares and rt-related files *right now*. However, > Kame replied earlier with a link to some patches for extending it > that introduce files with similar (granted: not the same) semantics: > > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-10/msg0 4335.html > > I think you could build on that and help push those patches towards > mainline along with your enhancements for reducing wakeups rather > than modify the freezer cgroup subsystem. > I will give CFS bandwidth control patches a try. See if I can be any help. Thanks. Jacob _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containe rs
creator: jacob.jun.pan
date: 2011-02-16T18:18:05-00:00