From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"luca.abeni@unitn.it" <luca.abeni@unitn.it>,
"rdunlap@infradead.org" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"henrik@austad.us" <henrik@austad.us>,
"raistlin@linux.it" <raistlin@linux.it>,
"juri.lelli@gmail.com" <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Rewrite section 4 intro
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:31:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53FC45DB.5070006@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140821134625.GB29495@gmail.com>
On 21/08/14 14:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Section 4 intro was still describing the old interface. Rewrite it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
>> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>
>> Cc: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
>> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
>> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt | 49 +++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
>> index dce6d63..8372c3d 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt
>> @@ -165,39 +165,38 @@ CONTENTS
>>
>> In order for the -deadline scheduling to be effective and useful, it is
>> important to have some method to keep the allocation of the available CPU
>> - bandwidth to the tasks under control.
>> - This is usually called "admission control" and if it is not performed at all,
>> - no guarantee can be given on the actual scheduling of the -deadline tasks.
>> -
>> - Since when RT-throttling has been introduced each task group has a bandwidth
>> - associated, calculated as a certain amount of runtime over a period.
>> - Moreover, to make it possible to manipulate such bandwidth, readable/writable
>> - controls have been added to both procfs (for system wide settings) and cgroupfs
>> - (for per-group settings).
>> - Therefore, the same interface is being used for controlling the bandwidth
>> - distrubution to -deadline tasks.
>> -
>> - However, more discussion is needed in order to figure out how we want to manage
>> - SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth at the task group level. Therefore, SCHED_DEADLINE
>> - uses (for now) a less sophisticated, but actually very sensible, mechanism to
>> - ensure that a certain utilization cap is not overcome per each root_domain.
>> -
>> - Another main difference between deadline bandwidth management and RT-throttling
>> + bandwidth to the tasks under control. This is usually called "admission
>> + control" and if it is not performed at all, no guarantee can be given on
>> + the actual scheduling of the -deadline tasks.
>> +
>> + The interface used to control the fraction of CPU bandwidth that can be
>> + allocated to -deadline tasks is similar to the one already used for -rt
>> + tasks with real-time group scheduling (a.k.a. RT-throttling - see
>> + Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt), and is based on readable/
>> + writable control files located in procfs (for system wide settings).
>> + Notice that per-group settings (controlled through cgroupfs) are still not
>> + defined for -deadline tasks, because more discussion is needed in order to
>> + figure out how we want to manage SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth at the task group
>> + level.
>> +
>> + A main difference between deadline bandwidth management and RT-throttling
>> is that -deadline tasks have bandwidth on their own (while -rt ones don't!),
>> and thus we don't need an higher level throttling mechanism to enforce the
>
> s/an higher/a higher
>
>> - desired bandwidth.
>> + desired bandwidth. Therefore, using this simple interface, we can put a cap
>
> s/interface, we/interface we
>
>> + on total utilization of -deadline tasks (i.e., \Sum (runtime_i / period_i) <
>> + some_desired_value).
>
Fixed.
Thanks a lot,
- Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-26 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-21 9:01 [PATCH v2 0/4] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation fixes and improvements Juri Lelli
2014-08-21 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix terminology and improve clarity Juri Lelli
2014-08-21 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Rewrite section 4 intro Juri Lelli
2014-08-21 13:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-26 8:31 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2014-08-21 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: improve and clarify AC bits Juri Lelli
2014-08-21 13:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-21 14:47 ` Luca Abeni
2014-08-22 8:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-22 20:14 ` Luca Abeni
2014-08-21 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: add tests suite appendix Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53FC45DB.5070006@arm.com \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raistlin@linux.it \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.