Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:14:31 -0400 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice |
| |
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 04:56:55PM +0530, Parth Shah wrote:
> >> > >> There are two presentations/discussions planned: > >> > >> "Introducing Latency Nice for Scheduler Hints and Optimizing Scheduler > >> Task Wakeup" and "The latency nice use case for Energy-Aware-Scheduling > >> (EAS) in Android Common Kernel (ACK)" > >> > >> We'll probably merge those two into one presentation/discussion. > >> > >> So far we have Parth's per-task implementation > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200228090755.22829-1-parth@linux.ibm.com > > > > Cool, I see it has some Reviewed-by tags so that's a good sign. Will > > look more into that. > > > >> What's missing is the per-taskgroup implementation, at least from the > >> standpoint of ACK. > >> > >> The (mainline) EAS use-case for latency nice is already in ACK > >> (android-5.4): > >> > >> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/760b82c9b88d2c8125abfc5f732cc3cd460b2a54 > > > > Yes, I was aware of this. But if we use task groups, then the > > transition from schedtune -> uclamp means now the tasks that use > > uclamp would also be subjected to cpu.shares. That's why we were > > looking into the per-task interface and glad there's some work on this > > already done. > > > > Yes, that series of latency_nice seems to be in good shape to be used for > any usecases. Hopefully, OSPM will lead to its upstreaming sooner :-)
Cool :)
> But at the end, we aim to have both the per-task and cgroup based interface > to mark the latency_nice value of a task.
Ok. We'd likely use the per-task interface unless we decide to assign cpu.shares for the groups as well.
> Till, then I'm finding some generic use-cases to show benefits of such task > attribute to increase community interest.
Ok. Feel free to add ChromeOS as a usecase as well.
thanks,
- Joel
| |