Re: [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entitieswhich exceed their local quota

From: Bharata B Rao
Date: Thu Feb 24 2011 - 11:39:47 EST

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:52:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 21:15 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > While I admit that our load balancing semantics wrt thorttled entities are
> > not consistent (we don't allow pulling of tasks directly from throttled
> > cfs_rqs, while allow pulling of tasks from a throttled hierarchy as in the
> > above case), I am beginning to think if it works out to be advantageous.
> > Is there a chance that the task gets to run on other CPU where the hierarchy
> > isn't throttled since runtime is still available ?
> Possible yes, but the load-balancer doesn't know about that, not should
> it (its complicated, and broken, enough, no need to add more cruft to
> it).
> I'm starting to think you all should just toss all this and start over,
> its just too smelly.

Hmm... You have brought up 3 concerns:

1. Hierarchy semantics

If you look at the heirarchy semantics we currently have while ignoring the
load balancer interactions for a moment, I guess what we have is a reasonable

- Only group entities are throttled
- Throttled entities are taken off the runqueue and hence they never
get picked up for scheduling.
- New or child entites are queued up to the throttled entities and not
further up. As I said in another thread, having the tree intact and correct
underneath the throttled entity allows us to rebuild the hierarchy during
unthrottling with least amount of effort.
- Group entities in a hierarchy are throttled independent of each other based
on their bandwidth specification.

2. Handling of throttled entities by load balancer

This definetely needs to improve and be more consistent. We can work on this.

3. per-cgroup vs global period specification

I thought per-cgroup specification would be most flexible and hence started
out with that. This would allow groups/workloads/VMs to define their
own bandwidth rate.

Let us know if you have other design concerns besides these.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at