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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 07:34:02 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
        vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        parth@linux.ibm.com, qais.yousef@arm.com, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
        David.Laight@aculab.com, pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
        qperret@google.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, joshdon@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
Message-ID: <YyioChBV2ecBw/vg@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220916080305.29574-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20220916080305.29574-7-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <000c2893-feb4-373d-2234-2ca74be94714@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000c2893-feb4-373d-2234-2ca74be94714@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 01:55:15PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> s/valentin.schneider@arm.com//
> 
> On 16/09/2022 10:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Task can set its latency priority, which is then used to decide to preempt
> > the current running entity of the cfs, but sched group entities still have
> > the default latency offset.
> > 
> > Add a latency field in task group to set the latency offset of the
> > sched_eneities of the group, which will be used against other entities in
> 
> s/sched_eneities/sched_entity
> 
> > the parent cfs when deciding which entity to schedule first.
> 
> So latency for cgroups does not follow any (existing) Resource
> Distribution Model/Scheme (Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst)?
> Latency values are only used to compare sched entities at the same level.

I think it'd still result in a hierarchical behavior as scheduling is done
recursively top-down. Right, vincent?

It doesn't fit any of the resource distribution model. But it's rather
difficult to map latencies to existing concepts of resources and we have a
precedence in the cpu controller (.idle) which behaves similarly, so as long
as the behavior is hierarchical, I think it's okay.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun