Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211004143650.699120-1-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <20211004143650.699120-2-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> <562d45e1-4a27-3252-f615-3ab1ef531f2b@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <562d45e1-4a27-3252-f615-3ab1ef531f2b@huawei.com>
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:58:15 +1300
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4w5Y4=v93YmTrXJ6hDgjKshxiAZ-ox-Nz_7uRwe4ECtdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] sched: Add nice value change notifier
To:     "Wanghui (John)" <john.wanghui@huawei.com>
Cc:     Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:15 PM Wanghui (John) <john.wanghui@huawei.com> wro=
te:
>
> HI Tvrtko
>
> On 2021/10/4 22:36, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >   void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
> >   {
> >       bool queued, running;
> > -     int old_prio;
> > +     int old_prio, ret;
> >       struct rq_flags rf;
> >       struct rq *rq;
> >
> > @@ -6915,6 +6947,9 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long ni=
ce)
> >
> >   out_unlock:
> >       task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> > +
> > +     ret =3D atomic_notifier_call_chain(&user_nice_notifier_list, nice=
, p);
> > +     WARN_ON_ONCE(ret !=3D NOTIFY_DONE);
> >   }
> How about adding a new "io_nice" to task_struct=EF=BC=8Cand move the call=
 chain to
> sched_setattr/getattr, there are two benefits:

We already have an ionice for block io scheduler. hardly can this new io_ni=
ce
be generic to all I/O. it seems the patchset is trying to link
process' nice with
GPU's scheduler, to some extent, it makes more senses than having a
common ionice because we have a lot of IO devices in the systems, we don't
know which I/O the ionice of task_struct should be applied to.

Maybe we could have an ionice dedicated for GPU just like ionice for CFQ
of bio/request scheduler.

>
> 1. Decoupled with fair scheduelr. In our use case, high priority tasks of=
ten
>     use rt scheduler.

Is it possible to tell GPU RT as we are telling them CFS nice?

> 2. The range of value don't need to be bound to -20~19 or 0~139
>

could build a mapping between the priorities of process and GPU. It seems
not a big deal.

Thanks
barry