On 04/02/16 12:31, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:30:49 +0000 > Juri Lelli <[email protected]> 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. >
Mmm.. IIUC that's because we don't destroy any root_domain in this case, as sched_load_balance of the parent is still set. So we add again to the existing one. I could fix that with some flag indicating when we actually destroy root_domain(s), but I fear it will make this solution uglier than it is already :/. More thinking required. Thanks for testing. Best, - Juri
