[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190701140642.GX3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:06:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
steven.sistare@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
riel@...riel.com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 0/7] Improve scheduler scalability for fast path
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 02:55:52PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 01-Jul 11:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hmmm?
>
> Just one more requirement I think it's worth to consider since the
> beginning: CGroups support
>
> That would be very welcome interface. Just because is so much more
> convenient (and safe) to set these bias on a group of tasks depending
> on their role in the system.
>
> Do you have any idea on how we can expose such a "lantency-nice"
> property via CGroups? It's very similar to cpu.shares but it does not
> represent a resource which can be partitioned.
If the latency_nice idea lives; exactly like the normal nice? That is;
IIRC cgroupv2 has a nice value interface (see cpu_weight_nice_*()).
But yes, this isn't a resource per se; just a shared attribute like
thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists