Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756638Ab1BXXp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:45:28 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:38326 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756394Ab1BXXp1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:45:27 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,221,1297065600"; d="scan'208";a="661246807" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:45:25 -0800 From: jacob pan To: Matt Helsley Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Arjan van de Ven , container cgroup , Li Zefan , Paul Menage , akpm@linux-foundation.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, Cedric Le Goater , Linux PM mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1, v9] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control Message-ID: <20110224154525.1b463723@jacob-laptop> In-Reply-To: <20110216032321.GA14893@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1297807750-28844-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1297807750-28844-2-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <201102160100.15487.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110215163812.7fa020b5@putvin> <20110216032321.GA14893@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> Organization: OTC X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2282 Lines: 52 On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:23:21 -0800 Matt Helsley 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" wrote: > > > > > > 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/msg04335.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 played with v3 and v4 of the CFS bandwidth patch. When the cpu cgroup exceeds its cfs_quota, it does have the same effect as this patch in terms of freeze/thaw at given period and allowed runtime. But when the cgroup cpu usage is below cfs_quota, it is not throttled. Therefore, it cannot reduce wakeups. I will continue look into the possibility of enhancing CFS BW patch for our needs, But again, the fundamental difference here is bandwidth vs idle time control. What we need for power saving is idle time not bandwidth. Thanks, Jacob -- 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/