[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YytF7MoZxeZ6tpCM@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:12:12 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
parth@...ux.ibm.com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
David.Laight@...lab.com, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > One option could be just using the same mapping as cpu.weight so that 100
> > maps to neutral, 10000 maps close to -20, 1 maps close to 19. It isn't great
> > that the value can't be interpreted in any intuitive way (e.g. a time
> > duration based interface would be a lot easier to grok even if it still is
> > best effort) but if that's what the per-task interface is gonna be, it'd be
> > best to keep cgroup interface in line.
>
> I would prefer a signed range like the [-1000:1000] as the behavior is
> different for sensitive and non sensitive task unlike the cpu.weight
> which is reflect that a bigger value get more
How about just sticking with .nice?
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists