From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEB5C3A5A5 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30ED7206CD for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:07:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732564AbfIENH7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:07:59 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:44802 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726097AbfIENH7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:07:59 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A4728; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.43]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57CE53F67D; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:07:56 -0700 (PDT) References: <20190830174944.21741-1-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> <20190830174944.21741-2-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> <20190905083127.GA2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87r24v2i14.fsf@arm.com> <20190905104616.GD2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87imq72dpc.fsf@arm.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.3.3; emacs 26.2 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Valentin Schneider Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Subhra Mazumdar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, steven.sistare@oracle.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, parth@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:07:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87d0ge3n85.fsf@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:46:37 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote... > On 05/09/2019 12:18, Patrick Bellasi wrote: >>> There's a few things wrong there; I really feel that if we call it nice, >>> it should be like nice. Otherwise we should call it latency-bias and not >>> have the association with nice to confuse people. >>> >>> Secondly; the default should be in the middle of the range. Naturally >>> this would be a signed range like nice [-(x+1),x] for some x. but if you >>> want [0,1024], then the default really should be 512, but personally I >>> like 0 better as a default, in which case we need negative numbers. >>> >>> This is important because we want to be able to bias towards less >>> importance to (tail) latency as well as more importantance to (tail) >>> latency. >>> >>> Specifically, Oracle wants to sacrifice (some) latency for throughput. >>> Facebook OTOH seems to want to sacrifice (some) throughput for latency. >> >> Right, we have this dualism to deal with and current mainline behaviour >> is somehow in the middle. >> >> BTW, the FB requirement is the same we have in Android. >> We want some CFS tasks to have very small latency and a low chance >> to be preempted by the wake-up of less-important "background" tasks. >> >> I'm not totally against the usage of a signed range, but I'm thinking >> that since we are introducing a new (non POSIX) concept we can get the >> chance to make it more human friendly. >> >> Give the two extremes above, would not be much simpler and intuitive to >> have 0 implementing the FB/Android (no latency) case and 1024 the >> (max latency) Oracle case? >> > > For something like latency-, I don't see the point of having > such a wide range. The nice range is probably more than enough - and before > even bothering about the range, we should probably agree on what the range > should represent. > > If it's niceness, I read it as: positive latency-nice value means we're > nice to latency, means we reduce it. So the further up you go, the more you > restrict your wakeup scan. I think it's quite easy to map that into the > code: current behaviour at 0, with a decreasing scan mask size as we go > towards +19. I don't think anyone needs 512 steps to tune this. > > I don't know what logic we'd follow for negative values though. Maybe > latency-nice -20 means always going through the slowpath, but what of the > intermediate values? Yep, I think so fare we are all converging towards the idea to use the a signed range. Regarding the range itself, yes: 1024 looks very oversized, but +-20 is still something which leave room for a bit of flexibility and it also better matches the idea that we don't want to "enumerate behaviours" but just expose a knob. To map certain "bias" we could benefit from a slightly larger range. > AFAICT this RFC only looks at wakeups, but I guess latency-nice can be For the wakeup path there is also the TurboSched proposal by Parth: Message-ID: <20190725070857.6639-1-parth@linux.ibm.com> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190725070857.6639-1-parth@linux.ibm.com/ we should keep in mind. > applied elsewhere (e.g. load-balance, something like task_hot() and its > use of sysctl_sched_migration_cost). For LB can you come up with some better description of what usages you see could benefit from a "per task" or "per task-group" latency niceness? Best, Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi