[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEAZo3_g-OMVEgc-@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:02:11 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] sched/debug: Add support to change sched_ext
server params
Hi Joel,
On 02/06/25 14:01, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> When a sched_ext server is loaded, tasks in CFS are converted to run in
> sched_ext class. Modify the ext server parameters as well along with the
> fair ones.
>
> Re-use the existing interface to modify both ext and fair servers to
> keep number of interfaces less (as it is, we have a per-cpu interface).
We have a bit of code duplication, don't we? I wonder if we can do
anything early on to prevent mis-alignment between servers in the
future.
Also, is a single shared interface enough? Is the assumption that either
all tasks are FAIR or SCX always guaranteed?
Thanks,
Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists