Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220311161406.23497-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20220311161406.23497-7-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <Yji0twS4N+0b/Rs9@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CAKfTPtA8g-MJMPRM2R_Bfo9rGSyR3cYAUy_j5UrRM+SAB=Mm7w@mail.gmail.com> <Yjn8DohJ8CZ6pEvf@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <Yjn8DohJ8CZ6pEvf@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:04:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB4iV0Z40grV3w=WwpOUAZAgx_ZoBfvjA63H8Am-RYdNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/6] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parth@linux.ibm.com,
        qais.yousef@arm.com, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
        pkondeti@codeaurora.org, Valentin.Schneider@arm.com,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
        qperret@google.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 17:40, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 05:10:36PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > latency_nice is quite similar to nice. The nice latency is used as an
> > index to get a latency weight in the range [-1024:1024].  latency_nice
> > is in the range [-20:19] and latency_prio shifts it in the range
> > [0:40] . This index is then used to get the latency weight similar to
> > how the nice prio is used to get a weight. That being said, the
> > latency should probably reflect the latency_weight instead of the
> > latency_prio in order to be aligned with the weight and weight.nice
> > fields of cgroups.
> >
> > As described in patch 5 commit message, the weight is then used to
> > compute a relative offset to check whether the waking task can preempt
> > the current running task.
>
> So, what I'm trying to say is if it is actually a weight, just use weight
> values instead of arbitrary mapped nice values. Nobody can tell how the
> latency nice value of -2 compares against, say, 3. If you can define it
> clearly in terms of weights (or something else clearly describable), it'd be
> a lot better.

The current use is mapped to weight because weight makes sense when
comparing vruntime but others might want to map the latency nice to
something else in other places of the scheduler. Time but also others
have mentioned the depth of the loop for looking an idle CPU

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun