Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce per-task latency_tolerance for scheduler hints | From | Parth Shah <> | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:43:44 +0530 |
| |
On 12/5/19 7:33 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 05/12/2019 11:49, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> >> On 05/12/2019 09:24, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >>> On 25/11/2019 10:46, Parth Shah wrote: >>>> This patch series is based on the discussion started as the "Usecases for >>>> the per-task latency-nice attribute"[1] >>>> >>>> This patch series introduces a new per-task attribute latency_tolerance to >>>> provide the scheduler hints about the latency requirements of the task. >>> >>> I forgot but is there a chance to have this as a per-taskgroup attribute >>> as well? >>> >> >> Peter argued we should go for task attributes first, and then >> cgroup/taskgroups later on: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190905083127.GA2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ > > OK, I went through this thread again. So Google or we have to provide > the missing per-taskgroup API via cpu controller's attributes (like for > uclamp) for the EAS usecase.
I suppose many others (including myself) will also be interested in having per-taskgroup attribute via CPU controller.
> > After reading: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190905114030.GL2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net > > IMHO the following mapping of the existing Android (binary) > latency_sensitive per-taskgroup flag makes sense: > > latency_sensitive=1 -> latency_tolerance*[-20 .. -1] (less tolerant, > more sensitive) > > latency_sensitive=0 -> latency_tolerance[0 .. 19] (more tolerant, less > sensitive) > > Default value is 0 so not latency_sensitive. > > * Since we use [-20 .. 19] as values for latency_tolerance we could name > it latency_nice. It's shorter ... ?
I kept choosing appropriate name and possible values for this new attribute in the separate thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/30/215 From which discussion, looking at Patrick's comment https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/18/678 I thought of picking latency_tolerance as the appropriate name. Still will be happy to change as per the community needs.
Thanks, parth
| |