On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:11:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:53:27PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > cgroups should be irrelevant, PI is unaware of them. > > > > I don't think cgroups are irrelevant. PI being unaware of them > > explains the problem I described. If the task that holds the lock is > > in a cgroup that has a low cpu.shares value, then boosting the task's > > priority within that group does necessarily make it any more likely to > > run. > > Thing is, for FIFO/DL the important parameters (prio and deadline resp.) > are not cgroup dependent. > > For CFS you're right, and as per usual, cgroups will be a royal pain. > While we can compute the total weight in the block chain, getting that > back to a task which is stuck in a cgroup is just not going to work > well. Not to mention the fact that the weight depends on the current running state. Having those tasks block insta changes the actual weight. > /me curses @ cgroups.. bloody stupid things. More of that. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
