On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:15:34AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Yes, the larger number of schedulable entities and hence slower > convergence to groupwise weightings is a disadvantage of the flattening. > A hybrid scheme seems reasonable enough. Cool! This puts me back on track to implement hierarchical scheduling in CFS :) Once this is done and once I can get containers running on a box, I will experiment with the flattening trick for user and process levels inside containers. Thanks for your feedback so far! > Ideally one would chop the > hierarchy in pieces so that n levels of hierarchy become k levels of n/k > weight-flattened hierarchies for this sort of attack to be most effective > (at least assuming similar branching factors at all levels of hierarchy > and sufficient depth to the hierarchy to make it meaningful) but this is > awkward to do. Peeling off the outermost container or whichever level is > deemed most important in terms of accuracy of aggregate enforcement as > a hierarchical scheduler is a practical compromise. > > Hybrid schemes will still incur the difficulties of hierarchical > scheduling, but they're by no means insurmountable. Sadly, only > complete flattening yields the simplifications that make task group > weighting enforcement orthogonal to load balancing and the like. The > scheme I described for global nice number behavior is also not readily > adaptable to hybrid schemes. -- Regards, vatsa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
