Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
To:     subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        steven.sistare@oracle.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        parth@linux.ibm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com
References: <20190830174944.21741-1-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
 <20190830174944.21741-2-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 mQINBE6ONugBEAC1c8laQ2QrezbYFetwrzD0v8rOqanj5X1jkySQr3hm/rqVcDJudcfdSMv0
 BNCCjt2dofFxVfRL0G8eQR4qoSgzDGDzoFva3NjTJ/34TlK9MMouLY7X5x3sXdZtrV4zhKGv
 3Rt2osfARdH3QDoTUHujhQxlcPk7cwjTXe4o3aHIFbcIBUmxhqPaz3AMfdCqbhd7uWe9MAZX
 7M9vk6PboyO4PgZRAs5lWRoD4ZfROtSViX49KEkO7BDClacVsODITpiaWtZVDxkYUX/D9OxG
 AkxmqrCxZxxZHDQos1SnS08aKD0QITm/LWQtwx1y0P4GGMXRlIAQE4rK69BDvzSaLB45ppOw
 AO7kw8aR3eu/sW8p016dx34bUFFTwbILJFvazpvRImdjmZGcTcvRd8QgmhNV5INyGwtfA8sn
 L4V13aZNZA9eWd+iuB8qZfoFiyAeHNWzLX/Moi8hB7LxFuEGnvbxYByRS83jsxjH2Bd49bTi
 XOsAY/YyGj6gl8KkjSbKOkj0IRy28nLisFdGBvgeQrvaLaA06VexptmrLjp1Qtyesw6zIJeP
 oHUImJltjPjFvyfkuIPfVIB87kukpB78bhSRA5mC365LsLRl+nrX7SauEo8b7MX0qbW9pg0f
 wsiyCCK0ioTTm4IWL2wiDB7PeiJSsViBORNKoxA093B42BWFJQARAQABtDRUaW0gQ2hlbiAo
 d29yayByZWxhdGVkKSA8dGltLmMuY2hlbkBsaW51eC5pbnRlbC5jb20+iQI+BBMBAgAoAhsD
 BgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCXFIuxAUJEYZe0wAKCRCiZ7WKota4STH3EACW
 1jBRzdzEd5QeTQWrTtB0Dxs5cC8/P7gEYlYQCr3Dod8fG7UcPbY7wlZXc3vr7+A47/bSTVc0
 DhUAUwJT+VBMIpKdYUbvfjmgicL9mOYW73/PHTO38BsMyoeOtuZlyoUl3yoxWmIqD4S1xV04
 q5qKyTakghFa+1ZlGTAIqjIzixY0E6309spVTHoImJTkXNdDQSF0AxjW0YNejt52rkGXXSoi
 IgYLRb3mLJE/k1KziYtXbkgQRYssty3n731prN5XrupcS4AiZIQl6+uG7nN2DGn9ozy2dgTi
 smPAOFH7PKJwj8UU8HUYtX24mQA6LKRNmOgB290PvrIy89FsBot/xKT2kpSlk20Ftmke7KCa
 65br/ExDzfaBKLynztcF8o72DXuJ4nS2IxfT/Zmkekvvx/s9R4kyPyebJ5IA/CH2Ez6kXIP+
 q0QVS25WF21vOtK52buUgt4SeRbqSpTZc8bpBBpWQcmeJqleo19WzITojpt0JvdVNC/1H7mF
 4l7og76MYSTCqIKcLzvKFeJSie50PM3IOPp4U2czSrmZURlTO0o1TRAa7Z5v/j8KxtSJKTgD
 lYKhR0MTIaNw3z5LPWCCYCmYfcwCsIa2vd3aZr3/Ao31ZnBuF4K2LCkZR7RQgLu+y5Tr8P7c
 e82t/AhTZrzQowzP0Vl6NQo8N6C2fcwjSrkCDQROjjboARAAx+LxKhznLH0RFvuBEGTcntrC
 3S0tpYmVsuWbdWr2ZL9VqZmXh6UWb0K7w7OpPNW1FiaWtVLnG1nuMmBJhE5jpYsi+yU8sbMA
 5BEiQn2hUo0k5eww5/oiyNI9H7vql9h628JhYd9T1CcDMghTNOKfCPNGzQ8Js33cFnszqL4I
 N9jh+qdg5FnMHs/+oBNtlvNjD1dQdM6gm8WLhFttXNPn7nRUPuLQxTqbuoPgoTmxUxR3/M5A
 KDjntKEdYZziBYfQJkvfLJdnRZnuHvXhO2EU1/7bAhdz7nULZktw9j1Sp9zRYfKRnQdIvXXa
 jHkOn3N41n0zjoKV1J1KpAH3UcVfOmnTj+u6iVMW5dkxLo07CddJDaayXtCBSmmd90OG0Odx
 cq9VaIu/DOQJ8OZU3JORiuuq40jlFsF1fy7nZSvQFsJlSmHkb+cDMZDc1yk0ko65girmNjMF
 hsAdVYfVsqS1TJrnengBgbPgesYO5eY0Tm3+0pa07EkONsxnzyWJDn4fh/eA6IEUo2JrOrex
 O6cRBNv9dwrUfJbMgzFeKdoyq/Zwe9QmdStkFpoh9036iWsj6Nt58NhXP8WDHOfBg9o86z9O
 VMZMC2Q0r6pGm7L0yHmPiixrxWdW0dGKvTHu/DH/ORUrjBYYeMsCc4jWoUt4Xq49LX98KDGN
 dhkZDGwKnAUAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQIADwIbDAUCXFIulQUJEYZenwAKCRCiZ7WKota4SYqUEACj
 P/GMnWbaG6s4TPM5Dg6lkiSjFLWWJi74m34I19vaX2CAJDxPXoTU6ya8KwNgXU4yhVq7TMId
 keQGTIw/fnCv3RLNRcTAapLarxwDPRzzq2snkZKIeNh+WcwilFjTpTRASRMRy9ehKYMq6Zh7
 PXXULzxblhF60dsvi7CuRsyiYprJg0h2iZVJbCIjhumCrsLnZ531SbZpnWz6OJM9Y16+HILp
 iZ77miSE87+xNa5Ye1W1ASRNnTd9ftWoTgLezi0/MeZVQ4Qz2Shk0MIOu56UxBb0asIaOgRj
 B5RGfDpbHfjy3Ja5WBDWgUQGgLd2b5B6MVruiFjpYK5WwDGPsj0nAOoENByJ+Oa6vvP2Olkl
 gQzSV2zm9vjgWeWx9H+X0eq40U+ounxTLJYNoJLK3jSkguwdXOfL2/Bvj2IyU35EOC5sgO6h
 VRt3kA/JPvZK+6MDxXmm6R8OyohR8uM/9NCb9aDw/DnLEWcFPHfzzFFn0idp7zD5SNgAXHzV
 PFY6UGIm86OuPZuSG31R0AU5zvcmWCeIvhxl5ZNfmZtv5h8TgmfGAgF4PSD0x/Bq4qobcfaL
 ugWG5FwiybPzu2H9ZLGoaRwRmCnzblJG0pRzNaC/F+0hNf63F1iSXzIlncHZ3By15bnt5QDk
 l50q2K/r651xphs7CGEdKi1nU0YJVbQxJQ==
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice
Message-ID: <11aaa3a8-e6b9-cf1f-08bb-0f8e1b63942b@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:32:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190830174944.21741-2-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 8/30/19 10:49 AM, subhra mazumdar wrote:
> Add Cgroup interface for latency-nice. Each CPU Cgroup adds a new file
> "latency-nice" which is shared by all the threads in that Cgroup.


Subhra,

Thanks for posting the patchset.  Having a latency nice hint
is useful beyond idle load balancing.  I can think of other
application scenarios, like scheduling batch machine learning AVX 512
processes with latency sensitive processes.  AVX512 limits the frequency
of the CPU and it is best to avoid latency sensitive task on the
same core with AVX512.  So latency nice hint allows the scheduler
to have a criteria to determine the latency sensitivity of a task
and arrange latency sensitive tasks away from AVX512 tasks.

You configure the latency hint on a cgroup basis.
But I think not all tasks in a cgroup necessarily have the same
latency sensitivity.

For example, I can see that cgroup can be applied on a per user basis,
and the user could run different tasks that have different latency sensitivity.
We may also need a way to configure latency sensitivity on a per task basis instead on
a per cgroup basis.

Tim


> @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>  	int				static_prio;
>  	int				normal_prio;
>  	unsigned int			rt_priority;
> +	u64				latency_nice;

Does it need to be 64 bit?  Max latency nice is only 100.

>  
>  	const struct sched_class	*sched_class;
>  	struct sched_entity		se;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 874c427..47969bc 100644

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index b52ed1a..365c928 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -143,6 +143,13 @@ static inline void cpu_load_update_active(struct rq *this_rq) { }
>  #define NICE_0_LOAD		(1L << NICE_0_LOAD_SHIFT)
>  
>  /*
> + * Latency-nice default value
> + */

Will be useful to add comments to let reader know 
that higher latency nice number means a task is more 
latency tolerant.

Is there a reason for setting the default to be a low
value of 5?

Seems like we will default to only to search the
same core for idle cpu on a smaller system, 
as we only search 5% of the cpu span of the target sched domain.

> +#define	LATENCY_NICE_DEFAULT	5
> +#define	LATENCY_NICE_MIN	1
> +#define	LATENCY_NICE_MAX	100
> +