lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 19:34, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 01:55:15PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > s/valentin.schneider@arm.com//
> >
> > On 16/09/2022 10:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Task can set its latency priority, which is then used to decide to preempt
> > > the current running entity of the cfs, but sched group entities still have
> > > the default latency offset.
> > >
> > > Add a latency field in task group to set the latency offset of the
> > > sched_eneities of the group, which will be used against other entities in
> >
> > s/sched_eneities/sched_entity
> >
> > > the parent cfs when deciding which entity to schedule first.
> >
> > So latency for cgroups does not follow any (existing) Resource
> > Distribution Model/Scheme (Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst)?
> > Latency values are only used to compare sched entities at the same level.
>
> I think it'd still result in a hierarchical behavior as scheduling is done
> recursively top-down. Right, vincent?

Correct

>
> It doesn't fit any of the resource distribution model. But it's rather
> difficult to map latencies to existing concepts of resources and we have a
> precedence in the cpu controller (.idle) which behaves similarly, so as long
> as the behavior is hierarchical, I think it's okay.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-20 09:03    [W:0.106 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site