Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello, Peter.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:08:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It's a direct concequence of the hierarchical requirement. The approach
> is the only valid one. The other relative controllers that don't do
> this, are simply broken.
> 
> Absolute controllers have it easier, they can be trivially flattened.

That's too strong a claim. e.g. iocost controller, while in a different
domain, is a weight controller which takes different trade-offs to achieve
hierarchical weight based distribution at negligible nesting overhead. There
usually are more than one way to skin a cat.

> > There are several practical challenges with the current implementation
> > caused by the full nesting - e.g. nesting levels are expensive for context
> > switch heavy applicaitons often going over >1% per level,
> 
> Yeah, and there's numerical problems you run into as well due to
> limitied precision.

Another issue is per-queue level heuristics like boosting after idle
nesting not in quite optimal ways.

> Just don't do deep hierarchies.
>
> AFAICT it's a simple matter of conflicting requirements, on the one hand
> the hierarchical thing is required, on the other hand people seem to
> think all this crap is 'free' and create super deep hierarchies and then
> complain shit don't work right.

The problem is that the overhead is significant enough even at pretty
shallow levels. Even at just two/three levels, the cost is already
significant enough for some large-scale applications.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun