Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220311161406.23497-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20220311161406.23497-4-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <6bee2e39-34a8-905f-084f-379b8476ea98@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <6bee2e39-34a8-905f-084f-379b8476ea98@arm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:41:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCr0se4T=21VONvsR1wmxhWFiLDeh-Wpc3xhFxUYMh5OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] sched: Allow sched_{get,set}attr to change
 latency_nice of the task
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.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, tj@kernel.org,
        dhaval.giani@oracle.com, qperret@google.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 11:23, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/03/2022 17:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -98,6 +99,22 @@ struct sched_param {
> >   * scheduled on a CPU with no more capacity than the specified value.
> >   *
> >   * A task utilization boundary can be reset by setting the attribute to -1.
> > + *
> > + * Latency Tolerance Attributes
> > + * ===========================
> > + *
> > + * A subset of sched_attr attributes allows to specify the relative latency
> > + * requirements of a task with respect to the other tasks running/queued in the
> > + * system.
> > + *
> > + * @ sched_latency_nice      task's latency_nice value
> > + *
> > + * The latency_nice of a task can have any value in a range of
> > + * [LATENCY_NICE_MIN..LATENCY_NICE_MAX].
>
> s/LATENCY_NICE_MIN/MIN_LATENCY_NICE
> s/LATENCY_NICE_MAX/MAX_LATENCY_NICE

yes

>
> > + * A task with latency_nice with the value of LATENCY_NICE_MIN can be
> > + * taken for a task with lower latency requirements as opposed to the task with
> > + * higher latency_nice.
>
> low latency nice (priority): -20 -> high weight: 1024 ... Doesn't a task
> with MIN_LATENCY_NICE -20 have the highest latency requirements?

IIUC, What Parth wanted to say here is that low latency nice
(priority): -20  is taken for a task which needs low latency. The low
applies to latency not requirements

>
> [...]