Messages in this thread | | | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Date | Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:01:58 -0400 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice |
| |
Hi Dietmar,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:23 PM Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > On 16.04.20 02:02, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:47:26PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > >> On 09/05/19 13:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:13:47PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > >>>> On 09/05/19 12:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> > >>>>> This is important because we want to be able to bias towards less > >>>>> importance to (tail) latency as well as more importantance to (tail) > >>>>> latency. > >>>>> > >>>>> Specifically, Oracle wants to sacrifice (some) latency for throughput. > >>>>> Facebook OTOH seems to want to sacrifice (some) throughput for latency. > >>>> > >>>> Another use case I'm considering is using latency-nice to prefer an idle CPU if > >>>> latency-nice is set otherwise go for the most energy efficient CPU. > >>>> > >>>> Ie: sacrifice (some) energy for latency. > >>>> > >>>> The way I see interpreting latency-nice here as a binary switch. But > >>>> maybe we can use the range to select what (some) energy to sacrifice > >>>> mean here. Hmmm. > >>> > >>> It cannot be binary, per definition is must be ternary, that is, <0, ==0 > >>> and >0 (or middle value if you're of that persuasion). > >> > >> I meant I want to use it as a binary. > >> > >>> > >>> In your case, I'm thinking you mean >0, we want to lower the latency. > >> > >> Yes. As long as there's an easy way to say: does this task care about latency > >> or not I'm good. > > > > Qais, Peter, all, > > > > For ChromeOS (my team), we are planning to use the upstream uclamp mechanism > > instead of the out-of-tree schedtune mechanism to provide EAS with the > > latency-sensitivity (binary/ternary) hint. ChromeOS is thankfully quite a bit > > upstream focussed :) > > > > However, uclamp is missing an attribute to provide this biasing to EAS as we > > know. > > > > What was the consensus on adding a per-task attribute to uclamp for providing > > this? Happy to collaborate on this front. > > We're planning to have a session about this topic (latency-nice > attribute per task group) during the virtual Pisa OSPM summit > retis.sssup.it/ospm-summit in May this year.
Cool, I registered as well.
> > There are two presentations/discussions planned: > > "Introducing Latency Nice for Scheduler Hints and Optimizing Scheduler > Task Wakeup" and "The latency nice use case for Energy-Aware-Scheduling > (EAS) in Android Common Kernel (ACK)" > > We'll probably merge those two into one presentation/discussion. > > So far we have Parth's per-task implementation > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200228090755.22829-1-parth@linux.ibm.com
Cool, I see it has some Reviewed-by tags so that's a good sign. Will look more into that.
> What's missing is the per-taskgroup implementation, at least from the > standpoint of ACK. > > The (mainline) EAS use-case for latency nice is already in ACK > (android-5.4): > > https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/760b82c9b88d2c8125abfc5f732cc3cd460b2a54
Yes, I was aware of this. But if we use task groups, then the transition from schedtune -> uclamp means now the tasks that use uclamp would also be subjected to cpu.shares. That's why we were looking into the per-task interface and glad there's some work on this already done.
Thanks!
- Joel
| |