Hi Peter,
On 29 November 2016 at 12:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:43:33AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> >
>> > In any case, for the case of autogroup, the behaviour has always been,
>> > autogroups came quite late.
>>
>> This ("the behavior has always been"
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:43:33AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >
> > In any case, for the case of autogroup, the behaviour has always been,
> > autogroups came quite late.
>
> This ("the behavior has always been") isn't quite true. Yes, group
> scheduling has been around since Lin
Hi Peter,
On 11/25/2016 10:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:54:05PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> So, part of what I was struggling with was what you meant by cfs-cgroup.
>> Do you mean the CFS bandwidth control features added in Linux 3.2?
>
> Nope, /me di
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Okay -- you're really quite the ASCII artist. And somehow,
> I think you needed to compose the mail in LaTeX. But thanks
> for the detail. It's helpful, for me at least.
Hehe, its been a while since I did LaTeX, so I'd
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:54:05PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> So, part of what I was struggling with was what you meant by cfs-cgroup.
> Do you mean the CFS bandwidth control features added in Linux 3.2?
Nope, /me digs around for a bit... around here I suppose:
68318b8e0b61 ("Ho
Hi Peter,
On 11/25/2016 05:34 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 05:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2016 04:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> Well that's one way of looking at it. So, the c
On 11/25/2016 05:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> On 11/25/2016 04:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> Well that's one way of looking at it. So, the change
>> that I'm talking about came in 2.6.32 with CFS then?
>
> cfs-cgr
Hi Peter,
On 11/25/2016 05:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:04:25PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
┌─┐
│FIXME│
├──
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 04:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Well that's one way of looking at it. So, the change
> that I'm talking about came in 2.6.32 with CFS then?
cfs-cgroup landed later I think, and it was fairly wobbly in t
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:04:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That is; the whole thing
> becomes, where l denotes the level in the hierarchy and i an
> entity on that level:
>
> l w_g,i
> dt_l,i = dt \Prod --
> g=0 \Sum w_g,j
>
>
> Or more co
On 11/25/2016 04:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 16:04 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
┌─┐
│FIXME│
├─
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:04:25PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>┌─┐
> >>│FIXME│
> >>├─┤
> >>│How d
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 16:04 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > >┌─┐
> > >│FIXME│
> > >├─┤
> > >│How do
On 11/25/2016 04:04 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 11/25/2016 02:02 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>┌─┐
>>>│FIXME│
>>>├
Hi Mike,
On 11/25/2016 02:02 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 22:41 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
>>Suppose that there are two autogroups competing for the same
>>CPU. The first group contains ten CPU-bound processes from a
>>kernel bui
On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 22:41 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>Suppose that there are two autogroups competing for the same
>CPU. The first group contains ten CPU-bound processes from a
>kernel build started with make -j10. The other contains a sin‐
>
On 11/25/2016 01:52 PM, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
>>Suppose that there are two autogroups competing for the same
>>CPU. The first group contains ten CPU-bound processes from a
>>kern
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>Suppose that there are two autogroups competing for the same
>CPU. The first group contains ten CPU-bound processes from a
>kernel build started with make -j10. The other contains a si
Hi Mike,
I reworked the text on autogroups, and in the process learned
something/have another question. Could you tell me if anything
in the below needs fixing/improving, and also let me know about
the FIXME?
Thanks,
Michael
The autogroup feature
Since Linux 2.6.38, the kernel provi
19 matches
Mail list logo
