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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3048AECAAD8 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232167AbiIUQxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:53:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60160 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231656AbiIUQwj (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:52:39 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F3F329B for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id 207so6498982pgc.7 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=/liW1qFYl/y6UrXav3eM11mYudj72cQq74iqPa7PHOU=; b=nLZejgyw1SYn1NN5mIEXLlYJ5HgHbVVwHISf5mLxhwbIaKu5C2qZEqeUtEkIQUEoP0 8gW+S2p9vzqOukem8SLt6TV+4x3IEJi9zZ3N90Vlx8gRPWJaOUbQUZriz3G0M263Np3E lplITQMPTgx0+++ZgTYNFRgkZ6cW68pEClUepwOzgoxSN4tuctYWRbAWJZNYTQVxMQQ8 9LgFImM6nNfJy6Tn7rCFpjzp3A+iuaMsFoBzmji9I2Rkm/h70oV3bRt7XJITeDu8ouZY csWznXywohwEbZxdXQkzv+mVBNipdnNgD3QUENm3oLf43eOrlJE2bFbngKyRmBeRp1HP 40iw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=/liW1qFYl/y6UrXav3eM11mYudj72cQq74iqPa7PHOU=; b=BeB/YRTOadvEfzbLVR8my/w4qHRHfnFiHHRlKbbj5OWciW7XhSvPXWpsxrA75T7T09 iRVYlgxtplpqyVED5yv8MQkAr3cn+6I6WXpe+RxhryQAcNRFFYBHFvV0igcdX62b+wpc mu64zr18JJ9MIqg5Db4Q4l22ekMdfPh5Hg7jhNYmHF1arLOslBBKED61lRX6HCcIf9UE GAaf3DbJd/rnCE/hLAQEnjI29mV3QLZ/KP+7Q0WYZ6HWCAsIlStVUGeDGVFoaI96io2r NY5ARkRA49ysYI4PdM6MCi+tJqC+lGKi9sf4bx7V300lfrUDyiVpXUqZQozoDlT9zXMZ lBkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0Je5Km/04Sh8Y4wYwYh5QZGidMc15xSOp+osbBtudRslcmt0OB HhHnkjJho+e9zHfBZRkXPcE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7HAQcUErQtj6estDMz+rxgEZ0Z94bVqdgFXZWdIJMkw4T7Fyv+SiwT7MArRDnzpgdHVRV/rQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1d26:b0:54e:8c81:9f64 with SMTP id a38-20020a056a001d2600b0054e8c819f64mr17249134pfx.58.1663778925772; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 9-20020a621409000000b0053e6eae9668sm2417284pfu.2.2022.09.21.09.48.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:48:43 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Qais Yousef Cc: Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parth@linux.ibm.com, chris.hyser@oracle.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, David.Laight@aculab.com, pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@google.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, joshdon@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support Message-ID: References: <20220916080305.29574-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20220916080305.29574-7-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <000c2893-feb4-373d-2234-2ca74be94714@arm.com> <20220921155521.qb3jb74nbjoenau6@airbuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220921155521.qb3jb74nbjoenau6@airbuntu> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:07:38PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > Wouldn't cpu.latency.nice be enough? I think the latency_offset is > implementation detail that userspace shouldn't be concerned about. One option could be just using the same mapping as cpu.weight so that 100 maps to neutral, 10000 maps close to -20, 1 maps close to 19. It isn't great that the value can't be interpreted in any intuitive way (e.g. a time duration based interface would be a lot easier to grok even if it still is best effort) but if that's what the per-task interface is gonna be, it'd be best to keep cgroup interface in line. As for whether a single value would fit the bill, it's again something which should be answered for both task and cgroup based interface at the same time. That said, my not-too-throught-through opinion is that a single value for per-task / per-cgroup interface + system level knobs to fine tune how that actually applies is likely enough and probably better than exposing exposing a host of internal details to applications directly. Thanks. -- tejun