[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a227dd46-e6ec-4cc3-a0a3-427c4ffc9d07@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:28:36 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>, Valentin Schneider
<vschneid@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Xi Wang
<xii@...gle.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Chengming Zhou
<chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>, Jan Kiszka
<jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Add related data structure for
task based throttle
Hello Aaron,
On 4/9/2025 5:37 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
>
> Add related data structures for this new throttle functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++++
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 +++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 ++
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index f96ac19828934..0b55c79fee209 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -880,6 +880,10 @@ struct task_struct {
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> struct task_group *sched_task_group;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> + struct callback_head sched_throttle_work;
> + struct list_head throttle_node;
Since throttled tasks are fully dequeued before placing on the
"throttled_limbo_list", is it possible to reuse "p->se.group_node"?
Currently, it is used to track the task on "rq->cfs_tasks" and during
load-balancing when moving a bunch of tasks between CPUs but since a
fully throttled task is not tracked by either, it should be safe to
reuse this bit (CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST will scream if I'm wrong) and save
up on some space in the task_struct.
Thoughts?
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
> +#endif
> #endif
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists