From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
pjt@google.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
quentin.perret@arm.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, tj@kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, qais.yousef@arm.com,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>
Subject: Re: Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:53:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190927135259.GB3557@bug> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc0712e4-f66f-a92b-fbf9-a3a84cf982a6@linux.ibm.com>
Hi!
> > I don't want to start a bikeshedding session here, but I agree with Parth
> > on the interpretation of the values.
> >
> > I've always read niceness values as
> > -20 (least nice to the system / other processes)
> > +19 (most nice to the system / other processes)
> >
> > So following this trend I'd see for latency-nice:
>
>
> So jotting down separately, in case if we think to have "latency-nice"
> terminology, then we might need to select one of the 2 interpretation:
>
> 1).
> > -20 (least nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice latency for throughput)
> > +19 (most nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice throughput for latency)
> >
>
> 2).
> -20 (least nice to other task in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-sensitive)
> +19 (most nice to other tasks in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-forgoing)
For the record, interpretation 2 makes sense to me.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-27 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-18 12:41 Parth Shah
2019-09-18 14:18 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-09-18 15:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-09-18 15:46 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-09-18 16:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-09-18 15:42 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-09-19 16:41 ` Parth Shah
2019-09-19 18:07 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-09-27 13:53 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2019-09-19 7:01 ` Parth Shah
2019-09-18 17:16 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-19 8:37 ` Parth Shah
2019-09-19 16:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-19 9:06 ` David Laight
2019-09-19 16:30 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-19 14:43 ` Qais Yousef
2019-09-20 10:45 ` Parth Shah
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=20190927135259.GB3557@bug \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome