On 12/08/25 00:04, Xin Zhao wrote:

On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 22:18 +0800, Sebastian wrote:

quoted

Yeah, please have a look at:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250715071658.267-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com/ (local)

Dear Valentin,

In addition to the information in my previous response to Sebastian, I would
like to add the following point as a reason for my self-recommendation (to
explore my patch for solving the cgroup performance issue in RT-Linux):
RT-Linux is a system that places a high emphasis on real-time performance.
The fact that regular tasks are also included in cgroup groups and throttled
suggests that they are relatively low-priority tasks that are not expected to
interfere with high-priority tasks. Therefore, is it not a bit too late to
impose limits only after returning to user mode?

Throttling is purely a CFS construct, and does not affect RT or DL
tasks (outside of the lock contention issues we're trying to fix :-)). If
an RT or DL task needs to run, it'll just preempt the CFS tasks, it won't
wait for any throttle or other mechanism.

Furthermore, when a throttled
task is awakened from S or D state, according to the logic of "imposing limits
after returning to user mode," it could cause that low-priority task to wake
up associated low-priority tasks one after another, leading to a sudden
increase in running time, which contradicts the relatively precise CPU usage
targets typically required in RT-Linux systems.

I would again say that's not a problem since those tasks are CFS.

Additionally, I believe there are still many areas for improvement in my patch,
and I hope to bring it to the community to gather suggestions from experts to
see if there are areas for iterative improvement.


Thanks
Xin Zhao