Hi Kurosawa,
Is this patch under discussion a new CPU resource controller for 2.6.15
?
Or is it the modified version of the already existing resource
controller for CKRM ?
I just want to know if you are coming up with a different idea for CPU
resource controller and whether we have choice between the existing
resource controller and this new one ?
If I am ignorant, sorry for that.
Regards,
Rajaram.
Rajaram Suryanarayanan | Team Lead | ES7000 Linux Systems Group
Unisys Global Services -India |
'Purva Premier', 135/1, Residency Road, | Bangalore - 560 025 |
+91-80-51594560
Do your best. Leave the rest to Linux.
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail
and its attachments from all computers.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KUROSAWA
Takahiro
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 1/2] add a CPU resource controller
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:03:45 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +void cpu_rc_collect_hunger(task_t *tsk)
> > +{
>
> [snip]
>
> > + if (CPU_RC_GUAR_SCALE * tsk->last_slice / (wait +
tsk->last_slice)
> > + < cr->guarantee / cr->rcd->numcpus)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Debugging it a bit indicated that the division of cr->guarantee by
> cr->rcd->numcpus in cpu_rc_collect_hunger doesn't seem to be required
(since
> LHS is not on global scale and also the class's tasks may not be
running
> on other CPUs as in case 2). Removing the division rectified CPU
sharing
> anomaly I had found.
>
> Let me know what you think of this fix!
Ah, you are right. LHS is on per-cpu scale.
I'll apply your patch.
> --- kernel/cpu_rc.c.org 2006-02-11 08:44:38.000000000 +0530
> +++ kernel/cpu_rc.c 2006-02-13 18:34:30.000000000 +0530
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ void cpu_rc_collect_hunger(task_t *tsk)
>
> wait = jiffies - tsk->last_activated;
> if (CPU_RC_GUAR_SCALE * tsk->last_slice / (wait +
tsk->last_slice)
> - < cr->guarantee / cr->rcd->numcpus)
> + < cr->guarantee)
> cr->stat[cpu].maybe_hungry++;
>
> tsk->last_activated = 0;
Thanks,
--
KUROSAWA, Takahiro
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
