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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 822B2C7619F for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A1020718 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728651AbgBQI5d (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 03:57:33 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:58106 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728524AbgBQI5c (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 03:57:32 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01H8rhMm139862 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 03:57:32 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2y6dp7vgfr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 03:57:32 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:29 -0000 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:26 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 01H8uU2W48234934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:56:30 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D59F11C052; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A73411C04C; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.124.35.198]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:57:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce per-task latency_nice for scheduler hints From: Parth Shah To: vincent.guittot@linaro.org, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, valentin.schneider@arm.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, qais.yousef@arm.com, pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@qperret.net, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, pjt@google.com, tj@kernel.org References: <20200116120230.16759-1-parth@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:27:22 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200116120230.16759-1-parth@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20021708-4275-0000-0000-000003A2B3D8 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20021708-4276-0000-0000-000038B6B743 Message-Id: <8ed0f40c-eeb4-c487-5420-a8eb185b5cdd@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572 definitions=2020-02-17_04:2020-02-14,2020-02-17 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002170079 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/16/20 5:32 PM, Parth Shah wrote: > This is the 3rd revision of the patch set to introduce > latency_{nice/tolerance} as a per task attribute. > > The previous version can be found at: > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/25/151 > v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/8/10 > > Changes in this revision are: > v2 -> v3: > - This series changes the longer attribute name to "latency_nice" as per > the comment from Dietmar Eggemann https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/5/394 > v1 -> v2: > - Addressed comments from Qais Yousef > - As per suggestion from Dietmar, moved content from newly created > include/linux/sched/latency_tolerance.h to kernel/sched/sched.h > - Extend sched_setattr() to support latency_tolerance in tools headers UAPI > > > Introduction: > ============== > This patch series introduces a new per-task attribute latency_nice to > provide the scheduler hints about the latency requirements of the task [1]. > > Latency_nice is a ranged attribute of a task with the value ranging > from [-20, 19] both inclusive which makes it align with the task nice > value. > > The value should provide scheduler hints about the relative latency > requirements of tasks, meaning the task with "latency_nice = -20" > should have lower latency requirements than compared to those tasks with > higher values. Similarly a task with "latency_nice = 19" can have higher > latency and hence such tasks may not care much about latency. > > The default value is set to 0. The usecases discussed below can use this > range of [-20, 19] for latency_nice for the specific purpose. This > patch does not implement any use cases for such attribute so that any > change in naming or range does not affect much to the other (future) > patches using this. The actual use of latency_nice during task wakeup > and load-balancing is yet to be coded for each of those usecases. > > As per my view, this defined attribute can be used in following ways for a > some of the usecases: > 1 Reduce search scan time for select_idle_cpu(): > - Reduce search scans for finding idle CPU for a waking task with lower > latency_nice values. > > 2 TurboSched: > - Classify the tasks with higher latency_nice values as a small > background task given that its historic utilization is very low, for > which the scheduler can search for more number of cores to do task > packing. A task with a latency_nice >= some_threshold (e.g, == 19) > and util <= 12.5% can be background tasks. > > 3 Optimize AVX512 based workload: > - Bias scheduler to not put a task having (latency_nice == -20) on a > core occupying AVX512 based workload. > > > Series Organization: > ==================== > - Patch 1: Add new attribute latency_nice to task_struct. > - Patch 2: Clone parent task's attribute to the child task on fork > - Patch 3: Add support for sched_{set,get}attr syscall to modify > latency_nice of the task > > > The patch series can be applied on tip/sched/core at the > commit 804d402fb6f6 ("sched/rt: Make RT capacity-aware") > > > References: > ============ > [1]. Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute, > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/30/215 > [2]. Task Latency-nice, "Subhra Mazumdar", > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/30/829 > [3]. Introduce per-task latency_tolerance for scheduler hints, > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/8/10 > > > Parth Shah (3): > sched: Introduce latency-nice as a per-task attribute > sched/core: Propagate parent task's latency requirements to the child > task > sched: Allow sched_{get,set}attr to change latency_nice of the task > > include/linux/sched.h | 1 + > include/uapi/linux/sched.h | 4 +++- > include/uapi/linux/sched/types.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/sched/core.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/sched/sched.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > tools/include/uapi/linux/sched.h | 4 +++- > 6 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > Its been a long time and few revisions since the beginning of the discussion around the latency-nice. Hence thought of asking if there is/are any further work that needs to be done for adding latency-nice attribute or am I missing any piece in here? Thanks, Parth