lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice
Date

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:31:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote...

> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:49:36AM -0700, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>> Add Cgroup interface for latency-nice. Each CPU Cgroup adds a new file
>> "latency-nice" which is shared by all the threads in that Cgroup.
>
> *sigh*, no. We start with a normal per task attribute, and then later,
> if it is needed and makes sense, we add it to cgroups.

FWIW, to add on top of what Peter says, we used this same approach for
uclamp and it proved to be a very effective way to come up with a good
design. General principles have been:

- a system wide API [1] (under /proc/sys/kernel/sched_*) defines
default values for all tasks affected by that feature.
This interface has to define also upper bounds for task specific
values. Thus, in the case of latency-nice, it should be set by
default to the MIN value, since that's the current mainline
behaviour: all tasks are latency sensitive.

- a per-task API [2] (via the sched_setattr() syscall) can be used to
relax the system wide setting thus implementing a "nice" policy.

- a per-taskgroup API [3] (via cpu controller's attributes) can be used
to relax the system-wide settings and restrict the per-task API.

The above features are worth to be added in that exact order.

> Also, your Changelog fails on pretty much every point. It doesn't
> explain why, it doesn't describe anything and so on.

On the description side, I guess it's worth to mention somewhere to
which scheduling classes this feature can be useful for. It's worth to
mention that it can apply only to:

- CFS tasks: for example, at wakeup time a task with an high
latency-nice should avoid to preempt a low latency-nice task.
Maybe by mapping the latency nice value into proper vruntime
normalization value?

- RT tasks: for example, at wakeup time a task with an high
latency-nice value could avoid to preempt a CFS task.

I'm sure there will be discussion about some of these features, that's
why it's important in the proposal presentation to keep a well defined
distinction among the "mechanisms and API" and how we use the new
concept to "bias" some scheduler policies.

> From just reading the above, I would expect it to have the range
> [-20,19] just like normal nice. Apparently this is not so.

Regarding the range for the latency-nice values, I guess we have two
options:

- [-20..19], which makes it similar to priorities
downside: we quite likely end up with a kernel space representation
which does not match the user-space one, e.g. look at
task_struct::prio.

- [0..1024], which makes it more similar to a "percentage"

Being latency-nice a new concept, we are not constrained by POSIX and
IMHO the [0..1024] scale is a better fit.

That will translate into:

latency-nice=0 : default (current mainline) behaviour, all "biasing"
policies are disabled and we wakeup up as fast as possible

latency-nice=1024 : maximum niceness, where for example we can imaging
to turn switch a CFS task to be SCHED_IDLE?

Best,
Patrick

[1] commit e8f14172c6b1 ("sched/uclamp: Add system default clamps")
[2] commit a509a7cd7974 ("sched/uclamp: Extend sched_setattr() to support utilization clamping")
[3] 5 patches in today's tip/sched/core up to:
commit babbe170e053 ("sched/uclamp: Update CPU's refcount on TG's clamp changes")

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-05 11:47    [W:0.151 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site