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: <20220916080305.29574-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20220916080305.29574-7-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <000c2893-feb4-373d-2234-2ca74be94714@arm.com>
 <YyioChBV2ecBw/vg@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <YyioChBV2ecBw/vg@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:02:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBCgJwwvEbKYTQZaczE+z+akoJy5607tFF897CK7w+WUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 19:34, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Correct

>
> 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