Re: CFS scheduler unfairly prefers pinned tasks

[paul . szabo]

Dear Mike,

>> ... the CFS is meant to be fair, using things like vruntime
>> to preempt, and throttling. Why are those pinned tasks not preempted or
>> throttled?
>
> Imagine you own a 8192 CPU box for a moment, all CPUs having one pinned
> task, plus one extra unpinned task, and ponder what would have to happen
> in order to meet your utilization expectation. ...

Sorry but the kernel contradicts. As per my original report, things are
"fair" in the case of:
 - with CGROUP controls and the two kinds of processes run by
   different users, when there is just one un-pinned process
and that is so on my quad-core i5-3470 baby or my 32-core 4*E5-4627v2
server (and everywhere that I tested). The kernel is smart and gets it
right for one un-pinned process: why not for two?

Now re-testing further (on some machines with CGROUP): on the i5-3470
things are fair still with one un-pinned (become un-fair with two), on
the 4*E5-4627v2 are fair still with 4 un-pinned (become un-fair with 5).
Does this suggest that the kernel does things right within each physical
CPU, but breaks across several (or exact contrary)? Maybe not: on a
2*E5530 machine, things are fair with just one un-pinned and un-fair
with 2 already.

> What you're seeing is not a bug.  No task can occupy more than one CPU
> at a time, making space reservation on multiple CPUs a very bad idea.

I agree that pinning may be bad... should not the kernel penalize the
badly pinned processes?

Cheers, Paul

Paul Szabo   psz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics   University of Sydney    Australia
--
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/