Message-Id: <b782b3c2-2db3-1dde-f996-9c274ba465ac@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:15:37 +0530
From:   Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        mingo@...hat.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, quentin.perret@....com,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, tj@...nel.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com
Subject: Re: Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute



On 9/19/19 8:13 PM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 09/18/19 18:11, Parth Shah wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> As per the discussion in LPC2019, new per-task property like latency-nice
>> can be useful in certain scenarios. The scheduler can take proper decision
>> by knowing latency requirement of a task from the end-user itself.
>>
>> There has already been an effort from Subhra for introducing Task
>> latency-nice [1] values and have seen several possibilities where this type of
>> interface can be used.
>>
>> From the best of my understanding of the discussion on the mail thread and
>> in the LPC2019, it seems that there are two dilemmas;
>>
>> 1. Name: What should be the name for such attr for all the possible usecases?
>> =============
>> Latency nice is the proposed name as of now where the lower value indicates
>> that the task doesn't care much for the latency and we can spend some more
>> time in the kernel to decide a better placement of a task (to save time,
>> energy, etc.)
>> But there seems to be a bit of confusion on whether we want biasing as well
>> (latency-biased) or something similar, in which case "latency-nice" may
>> confuse the end-user.
>>
>> 2. Value: What should be the range of possible values supported by this new
>> attr?
>> ==============
>> The possible values of such task attribute still need community attention.
>> Do we need a range of values or just binary/ternary values are sufficient?
>> Also signed or unsigned and so the length of the variable (u64, s32, etc)?
> 
> IMO the main question is who is the intended user of this new knob/API?
> 
> If it's intended for system admins to optimize certain workloads on a system
> then I like the latency-nice range.
> 
> If we want to support application writers to define the latency requirements of
> their tasks then I think latency-nice would be very confusing to use.
> Especially when one has to consider they lack a pre-knowledge about the system
> they will run on; and what else they are sharing the resources with.
> 

Yes, valid point.
But from my view, this will most certainly be for system admins who can
optimize certain workloads from the systemd, tuned or similar OS daemons.

>>
>>
>>
>> This mail is to initiate the discussion regarding the possible usecases of
>> such per task attribute and to come up with a specific name and value for
>> the same.
>>
>> Hopefully, interested one should plot out their usecase for which this new
>> attr can potentially help in solving or optimizing it.
>>
>>
>> Well, to start with, here is my usecase.
>>
>> -------------------
>> **Usecases**
>> -------------------
>>
>> $> TurboSched
>> ====================
>> TurboSched [2] tries to minimize the number of active cores in a socket by
>> packing an un-important and low-utilization (named jitter) task on an
>> already active core and thus refrains from waking up of a new core if
>> possible. This requires tagging of tasks from the userspace hinting which
>> tasks are un-important and thus waking-up a new core to minimize the
>> latency is un-necessary for such tasks.
>> As per the discussion on the posted RFC, it will be appropriate to use the
>> task latency property where a task with the highest latency-nice value can
>> be packed.
>> But for this specific use-cases, having just a binary value to know which
>> task is latency-sensitive and which not is sufficient enough, but having a
>> range is also a good way to go where above some threshold the task can be
>> packed.
> 
> 
> $> EAS
> ====================
> The new knob can help EAS path to switch to spreading behavior when
> latency-nice is set instead of packing tasks on the most energy efficient CPU.
> ie: pick the most energy efficient idle CPU.
> 

+1

Thanks,
Parth

> --
> Qais Yousef
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists