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;
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:51:02 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Cc:     rdunlap@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] sched: RT bandwidth interface for
 cgroup unified hierarchy
Message-ID: <20220623075102.GJ27251@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20220622015557.7497-1-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
 <20220622173929.GA669@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <888b6885-5380-e21f-260f-eb1bb89679c3@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <888b6885-5380-e21f-260f-eb1bb89679c3@bytedance.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:23:26AM +0800, Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
> I don't know why v2 differ from v1 in the RT bandwidth control.. Is there
> some links of explanation? (CFS bandwidth control can work on v2 now.)

You can see some ideas in [1] (the v1 API allows configurations that are
not implemented).
And I'd also say more generally, that applying throttling to an RT task
is already a lost game (either it's a runaway meaning there's a bug
elsewhere or the RT task won't have sufficient runtime which defeats its
RTness).

> If the problem can't be solved, we have to unset CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED.

AFAICT, this was enough so far (but RT group scheduling can still be
(re)worked).

HTH,
Michal

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/scheduler/sched-rt-group.html