Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:30:19 +0000 | From | Juri Lelli <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth |
| |
Hi Luca, Peter,
On 02/02/16 21:53, Luca Abeni wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:44:22 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:52:19PM +0100, luca abeni wrote: > > > > > > The trouble is with interfaces. Once we expose them we're stuck > > > > with them. And from that POV I think an explicit SCHED_OTHER > > > > server (or a minimum budget for a slack time scheme) makes more > > > > sense. > > > > > I am trying to work on this. > > > Which kind of interface is better for this? Would adding something > > > like /proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_period_us > > > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_runtime_us > > > be ok? > > > > > > If this is ok, I'll add these two procfs files, and store > > > (sched_other_runtime / sched_other_period) << 20 in the runqueue > > > field which represents the unreclaimable utilization (implementing > > > hierarchical SCHED_DEADLINE/CFS scheduling right now is too complex > > > for this patchset... But if the exported interface is ok, it can be > > > implemented later). > > > > > > Is this approach acceptable? Or am I misunderstanding your comment? > > > > No, I think that's fine. > So, I implemented this idea (/proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_period_us > and /proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_runtime_us to set the unreclaimable > utilization), and some initial testing seems to show that it works fine. >
Sorry for not saying this before, but why can't we use the existing sched_rt_runtime_us/sched_rt_runtime_period cap for this? I mean, other will have (1 - rt_runtime_ratio) available to run.
Best,
- Juri
| |