Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: enforce per-cpu utilization limits on runtimebalancing

[Fabio Checconi]

> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, Feb 25, 2010 09:28:23PM +0100
>
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 19:56 +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +static inline unsigned long rt_init_free_bw(void)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long used = to_ratio(global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
> > +
> > +       return to_ratio(RUNTIME_INF, RUNTIME_INF) - used;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> 
> > +static void __rt_restart_balancing(void)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long used, global, free;
> > +       struct rq *rq;
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       used = rt_used_bandwidth();
> > +       global = to_ratio(RUNTIME_INF, RUNTIME_INF);
> > +
> > +       free = global - used;
> 
> 
> We take the max as RUNTIME_INF instead of global_rt_* so that we can
> move runtime around and fully saturate a single cpu (given there is
> enough free to compensate on other cpus) ?

The only reason I've used RUNTIME_INF instead of global_rt_* is for the
!GROUP_SCHED case, where using the global_rt_* values would make balancing
have no effect at all (the initial value for def_rt_bandwidth already
uses the maximum bw on each cpu) .  The current throttling implementation
in this case still tries to concentrate bw on a single cpu, and I wanted
to replicate the same behaviour.

Should I go for the global_rt_* values and add some #ifdef unreadability
to avoid the balancing overhead in the !GROUP_SCHED case?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/