Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1317867
| From | luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth |
| Date | 2016-01-26 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qVbnY-4eF-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qQS0x-uX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQSae-yO-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQWdQ-3jT-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qR7VE-3qX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qR8oG-3Fn-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | university of trento |
Hi Peter, On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:50:04 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: [...] > > >>NOTE: the fraction of CPU time that cannot be reclaimed is > > >>currently hardcoded as (1 << 20) / 10 -> 90%, but it must be made > > >>configurable! > > > > > >So the alternative is an explicit SCHED_OTHER server which is > > >configurable. > > Yes, I have thought about something similar (actually, this is the > > strategy I implemented in my first CBS/GRUB scheduler. With the > > "old" 2.4 scheduler, this was easier :). > > But I think the solution I implemented in this patch is much > > simpler (it just requires a very simple modification to > > grub_reclaim()) and is more elegant from the theoretical point of > > view. > > It is certainly simpler, agreed. > > The trouble is with interfaces. Once we expose them we're stuck with > them. And from that POV I think an explicit SCHED_OTHER server (or a > minimum budget for a slack time scheme) makes more sense. I am trying to work on this. Which kind of interface is better for this? Would adding something like /proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_period_us /proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_runtime_us be ok? If this is ok, I'll add these two procfs files, and store (sched_other_runtime / sched_other_period) << 20 in the runqueue field which represents the unreclaimable utilization (implementing hierarchical SCHED_DEADLINE/CFS scheduling right now is too complex for this patchset... But if the exported interface is ok, it can be implemented later). Is this approach acceptable? Or am I misunderstanding your comment? Thanks, Luca
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> - 2016-01-26 14:00 +0100 Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-27 15:50 +0100
csiph-web