[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221105142843.xz663q7fcvzsntw3@airbuntu>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 14:28:43 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....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,
qais.yousef@....com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, David.Laight@...lab.com,
pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz, tj@...nel.org, qperret@...gle.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org,
kprateek.nayak@....com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
On 11/04/22 09:13, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > If I have a task that has p->latency_nice = 20 but it belongs to a cgroup
> > that has tg->cpu.latency.nice = -19
>
> Just for the task placement signal, One way is to go through the se hierarchy
> till the root and get the minimum. Then make that the effective value. So In
> your example that would make it -19 so prefer idle = 1. We should need
> a Boolean signal. Not pretty but not the end of the world imho.
It is not hard to hack something. My worry is about consistency; and
maintainers in the future saying that doesn't fit the current design.
I'd love for this to be usable everywhere as-is. That requires the expectations
for both users and consumers are being made clear from the beginning.
What I was asking for is for the documentation to reflect this, and the
implementation of this effective function being made available from the start.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists