Message-ID: <4D023F7F.9000201@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:55:59 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100806 Fedora/3.1.2-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
References: <20101202144129.4357fe00@annuminas.surriel.com> <20101202144423.3ad1908d@annuminas.surriel.com> <1291382619.32004.2124.camel@laptop> <20101203133056.GF27994@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1291385010.32004.2165.camel@laptop> <20101203140607.GA9800@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D01ADE6.3010508@redhat.com> <20101210083906.GC2870@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101210083906.GC2870@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1484
Lines: 37

On 12/10/2010 03:39 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:34:46PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 09:06 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning
>>>> before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at
>>>> some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled.
>>>
>>> Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this
>>> case)?
>>
>> I have a rough idea for a simpler way to ensure
>> fairness.
>>
>> At yield_to time, we could track in the runqueue
>> structure that a task received CPU time (and on
>> the other runqueue that a task donated CPU time).
>>
>> The balancer can count time-given-to CPUs as
>> busier, and donated-time CPUs as less busy,
>> moving tasks away in the unlikely event that
>> the same task gets keeping CPU time given to
>> it.
>
> I think just capping donation (either on send side or receive side) may be more
> simpler here than to mess with load balancer logic.

Do you have any ideas on how to implement this in a simple
enough way that it may be acceptable upstream? :)

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/