Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1756831AbYBAIPU@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756831AbYBAIPU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:15:20 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753038AbYBAIPA
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:15:00 -0500
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:46434 "EHLO
	e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753178AbYBAIO6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:14:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:49:31 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
       "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>, containers@lists.osdl.org,
       dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "Balbir Singh" <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
       pj@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Default child of a cgroup
Message-ID: <20080201081931.GA21572@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20080131024049.GA9544@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830801311839x33cf2ebco9f501571fc129b11@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830801311839x33cf2ebco9f501571fc129b11@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2901
Lines: 73

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:39:56PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
> >
> > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
> >    task-group in A/a1/tasks? In otherwords do they form siblings
> >    of the same parent A?
> 
> I'd argue the same as Balbir - tasks in A/tasks are are children of A
> and are siblings of a1, a2, etc.

> > 2. Somewhat related to the above question, how much resource should the
> >    task-group A/a1/tasks get in relation to A/tasks? Is it 1/2 of parent
> >    A's share or 1/(1 + N) of parent A's share (where N = number of tasks
> >    in A/tasks)?
> 
> Each process in A should have a scheduler weight that's derived from
> its static_prio field. Similarly each subgroup of A will have a
> scheduler weight that's determined by its cpu.shares value. So the cpu
> share of any child (be it a task or a subgroup) would be equal to its
> own weight divided by the sum of weights of all children.

Assuming all tasks are of same prio, then what you are saying is that
A/a1/tasks should cumulatively recv 1/(1 + N) of parent's share.

After some thought, that seems like a reasonable expectation. The only issue
I have for that is it breaks current behavior in mainline. Assume this
structure:

 	   /
 	   |------<tasks>
 	   |------<cpuacct.usage>
  	   |------<cpu.shares>
 	   |
 	   |----[A]
 	   |     |----<tasks>
 	   |     |----<cpuacct.usage>
 	   |     |----<cpu.shares>


then, going by above argument, /A/tasks should recv 1/(1+M)% of system
resources (M -> number of tasks in /tasks), whereas it receives 1/2 of
system resources currently (assuming /cpu.shares and /A/cpu.shares are
same).

Balbir, is this behaviour same for memory controller as well?

So pick any option, we are talking of deviating from current
behavior, which perhaps is a non-issue if we want to DTRT.

> So yes, if a task in A forks lots of children, those children could
> end up getting a disproportionate amount of the CPU compared to tasks
> in A/a1 - but that's the same as the situation without cgroups. If you
> want to control cpu usage between different sets of processes in A,
> they should be in sibling cgroups, not directly in A.
> 
> Is there a restriction in CFS that stops a given group from
> simultaneously holding tasks and sub-groups? If so, couldn't we change
> CFS to make it possible rather than enforcing awkward restructions on
> cgroups?

Should be possible, need to look closely at what will need to change
(load_balance routines for sure).

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
--
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/