On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:30:49 +0000
Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote:

> I've actually changed a bit this approach, and things seem better here.
> Could you please give this a try? (You can also fetch the same branch).

It appears to fix the one issue I pointed out, but it doesn't fix the
issue with cpusets.

 # burn&
 # TASK=$!
 # schedtool -E -t 2000000:20000000 $TASK
 # grep dl /proc/sched_debug
dl_rq[0]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[1]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[2]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[3]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[4]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[5]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[6]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[7]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857

 # mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/my_cpuset
 # echo 1 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/my_cpuset/cpuset.cpus
 # grep dl /proc/sched_debug
dl_rq[0]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[1]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[2]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[3]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[4]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[5]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[6]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714
dl_rq[7]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 209714

It appears to add double the bandwidth.

 # kill $TASK
 # grep dl /proc/sched_debug
dl_rq[0]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[1]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[2]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[3]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[4]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[5]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[6]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[7]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857

Now we have used bandwidth with nothing running.

 # rmdir /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/my_cpuset
 # grep dl /proc/sched_debug
dl_rq[0]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[1]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[2]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[3]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[4]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[5]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[6]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857
dl_rq[7]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 104857

And now that bandwidth is leaked, but it seems we can get it back with
the old sched_load_balance trick.

 # echo 0 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/cpuset.sched_load_balance
 # grep dl /proc/sched_debug
dl_rq[0]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[1]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[2]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[3]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[4]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[5]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[6]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0
dl_rq[7]:
  .dl_nr_running                 : 0
  .dl_bw->bw                     : 996147
  .dl_bw->total_bw               : 0


-- Steve

Reply via email to