Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758850AbZKKUlG (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:41:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757161AbZKKUlF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:41:05 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:46401 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757261AbZKKUlE (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:41:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4AFB2109.8010708@nortel.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:39:37 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Yasunori Goto , Miao Xie , Linux-Kernel , containers , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu controller can't provide fair CPU time for each group References: <4AEF94E8.3030403@cn.fujitsu.com> <1257846518.4648.18.camel@twins> <20091111134910.5F42.E1E9C6FF@jp.fujitsu.com> <1257924007.23203.18.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1257924007.23203.18.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2009 20:41:05.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[49F654A0:01CA630F] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1309 Lines: 30 On 11/11/2009 01:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 15:21 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > >> When users use cpuset/cpu affinity, then they would like to controll cpu affinity. >> Not CPU time. > > What are people using affinity for? The only use of affinity is to > restrict or disable the load-balancer. Don't complain the load-balancer > doesn't work when you're taking active steps to hinder its work. I have one active user of scheduler groups (using CKRM though, but they want to switch to a new kernel using CFS and sched groups in the near future). They want to run their app on one cpu by itself with as little interference as possible. Pure cpu processing, not even any I/O except via shared memory buffers. Everything else gets done on the other cpu, but they want to control how much of the other cpu is assigned to packet processing, how much to system maintenance, normal user shell commands, etc. This would seem like a case where some sort of cpuset/affinity and sched groups would be expected to play nice together. Chris -- 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/