From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Yuri Andriaccio <yurand2000@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yuri Andriaccio <yuri.andriaccio@santannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/24] Hierarchical Constant Bandwidth Server
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:02:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251024100227.6ab1bfde@luca64> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPYDhjqe99F91FTW@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Hi Juri,
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:40:22 +0200
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > - The first patch which removed fair-servers' bandwidth
> > > accounting has been removed, as it was deemed wrong. You can find
> > > the last version of this removed patch, just for history reasons,
> > > here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250903114448.664452-1-yurand2000@gmail.com/
> > >
> >
> > Peter wasn't indeed happy with that patch, but I am not sure we
> > finished that discussion. Both myself and Luca had further
> > objections to what Peter said, but not further replies after (which
> > can very well be a sign that he is still adamnt in saying no go
> > away :). Peter?
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aLk9BNnFYZ3bhVAE@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb/
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250904091217.78de3dde@luca64/
>
> I had a quick chat with Peter on IRC about this. We now seem to agree
> that a third option would be to move to explicitly account
> dl-server(s), correspondingly moving from a 95% to 100% limit. That
> would also make our life easier in the future with additional
> dl-servers (e.g. scx-server).
>
> What do you think?
This looks like another good solution, thanks!
So, if I understand well with this approach
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_{runtime, period}_us would be set to 100% as
a default, right?
It is often useful to know what is the maximum CPU utilization that can
be guaranteed to real-time tasks... With this approach, it would be
100% - <dl_server utilization>, but this can change when scx servers are
added... What about making this information available to userspace
programs? (maybe /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_{runtime, period}_us could
provide such information? Or is it better to add a new interface?)
Thanks,
Luca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-24 8:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-29 9:21 [RFC PATCH v3 00/24] Hierarchical Constant Bandwidth Server Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:21 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/24] sched/deadline: Do not access dl_se->rq directly Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 13:10 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:21 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] sched/deadline: Distinct between dl_rq and my_q Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 13:29 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/24] sched/rt: Pass an rt_rq instead of an rq where needed Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 14:01 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/24] sched/rt: Move some functions from rt.c to sched.h Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 14:12 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/24] sched/rt: Disable RT_GROUP_SCHED Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 15:35 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/24] sched/rt: Introduce HCBS specific structs in task_group Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 15:58 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/24] sched/core: Initialize root_task_group Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 16:33 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/24] sched/deadline: Add dl_init_tg Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-08 6:25 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/24] sched/rt: Add {alloc/free}_rt_sched_group Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-08 7:28 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/24] sched/deadline: Account rt-cgroups bandwidth in deadline tasks schedulability tests Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/24] sched/rt: Add rt-cgroups' dl-servers operations Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-08 10:26 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] sched/rt: Update task event callbacks for HCBS scheduling Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-09 6:54 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/24] sched/rt: Update rt-cgroup schedulability checks Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 11:03 ` Markus Elfring
2025-10-09 9:51 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 14/24] sched/rt: Allow zeroing the runtime of the root control group Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-09 13:54 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 15/24] sched/rt: Remove old RT_GROUP_SCHED data structures Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 16/24] sched/core: Cgroup v2 support Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 17/24] sched/rt: Remove support for cgroups-v1 Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-15 11:51 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 18/24] sched/deadline: Allow deeper hierarchies of RT cgroups Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-15 14:24 ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 19/24] sched/rt: Add rt-cgroup migration Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 20/24] sched/rt: Add HCBS migration related checks and function calls Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 21/24] sched/deadline: Make rt-cgroup's servers pull tasks on timer replenishment Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 22/24] sched/deadline: Fix HCBS migrations on server stop Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 23/24] sched/core: Execute enqueued balance callbacks when changing allowed CPUs Yuri Andriaccio
2025-09-29 9:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 24/24] sched/core: Execute enqueued balance callbacks when migrating task betweeen cgroups Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-02 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/24] Hierarchical Constant Bandwidth Server Juri Lelli
2025-10-15 14:35 ` Juri Lelli
2025-10-15 15:17 ` Yuri Andriaccio
2025-10-20 9:40 ` Juri Lelli
2025-10-24 8:02 ` luca abeni [this message]
2025-11-03 10:32 ` 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=20251024100227.6ab1bfde@luca64 \
--to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yurand2000@gmail.com \
--cc=yuri.andriaccio@santannapisa.it \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox