Message-ID: <4FC4BE9F.9060102@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:18:39 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com,
        p.faure@akatech.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@amarulasolutions.com,
        fchecconi@gmail.com, tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it,
        nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni@unitn.it,
        dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@ericsson.com, liming.wang@windriver.com,
        jkacur@redhat.com, harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: add bandwidth management for sched_dl.
References: <1337809375-24295-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com>   <1337809375-24295-14-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com>  <1337942292.9783.178.camel@laptop> <4FC0B95C.5060207@gmail.com> <1338285486.26856.16.camel@twins>
In-Reply-To: <1338285486.26856.16.camel@twins>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2700
Lines: 65

On 05/29/2012 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 13:07 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/25/2012 12:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:42 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Coupling of -dl and -rt bandwidth.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Here we check, while setting the system wide bandwidth available
>>>> + * for -dl tasks and groups, if the new values are consistent with
>>>> + * the system settings for the bandwidth available to -rt entities.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * IOW, we want to enforce that
>>>> + *
>>>> + *   rt_bandwidth + dl_bandwidth<= 100%
>>>> + *
>>>> + * is always true.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> I was thinking we could do it the other way around, have have
>>> dl_bandwidth included in rt_bandwidth.
>>>
>>
>> If I understand correctly, you are proposing to treat -dl tasks as a
>> special case of "real-time" tasks. Then we could reserve some bw to
>> "real-time" (rt_bandwidth cap) activities and give a piece of this
>> bw to -dl tasks (what remains is for -rt tasks). This is in principle
>> nice and useful, but I'm not quite sure that this is the right point
>> to achieve this logical behavior.
>> I mean, -dl and -rt tasks are separately treated, so it is probably
>> cleaner to manage their knobs separately. They have to coexist rather
>> than be considered one a sub-case of the other. A better way to go
>> for a common cap for them is probably the (long-term) hierarchical
>> scheduling mechanism.
>>
>> So, I would prefer to keep the interface as is for now, but I can also
>> completely misunderstood your thoughts :-P.
>
> The thing is, keeping it separate makes for an impossible configuration
> scenario. Esp. once we enable !root usage. The proposed 5% is very
> limiting and regular users won't have sufficient privilege to change it.
>

Ok, now I understand your point better, and I agree that 5% is hardly
usable for !root users. However, I also think this is probably more a
system admin problem. I mean, a sys admin that wants his users to play
with -deadline scheduling should have thought how to properly set up his
system, and the fact that something must be configured by hand to give
users a usable system is generally not a so bad idea.

> Also lowering FIFO/RR by default isn't a real option since people expect
> that to get all time already (however silly that expectation is).
>

I agree. Don't want to spoil users expectations :-).

Thanks and regards,

- Juri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/