Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 2016 14:28:18 +0100 | From | luca abeni <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth |
| |
Hi Juri,
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:30:19 +0000 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote: [...] > > > > 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.
I was thinking about providing a more flexible interface (allowing to use rt_runtime/rt_period for admission control and other_runtime/other_period for reclaiming), but using using sched_rt_runtime_us/sched_rt_runtime_period makes sense too. If this solution is preferred, I'll adapt my patch.
Thanks, Luca
| |