Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice
From: Patrick Bellasi
Date: Thu Sep 05 2019 - 09:08:01 EST
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:46:37 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote...
> On 05/09/2019 12:18, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>>> There's a few things wrong there; I really feel that if we call it nice,
>>> it should be like nice. Otherwise we should call it latency-bias and not
>>> have the association with nice to confuse people.
>>> Secondly; the default should be in the middle of the range. Naturally
>>> this would be a signed range like nice [-(x+1),x] for some x. but if you
>>> want [0,1024], then the default really should be 512, but personally I
>>> like 0 better as a default, in which case we need negative numbers.
>>> This is important because we want to be able to bias towards less
>>> importance to (tail) latency as well as more importantance to (tail)
>>> Specifically, Oracle wants to sacrifice (some) latency for throughput.
>>> Facebook OTOH seems to want to sacrifice (some) throughput for latency.
>> Right, we have this dualism to deal with and current mainline behaviour
>> is somehow in the middle.
>> BTW, the FB requirement is the same we have in Android.
>> We want some CFS tasks to have very small latency and a low chance
>> to be preempted by the wake-up of less-important "background" tasks.
>> I'm not totally against the usage of a signed range, but I'm thinking
>> that since we are introducing a new (non POSIX) concept we can get the
>> chance to make it more human friendly.
>> Give the two extremes above, would not be much simpler and intuitive to
>> have 0 implementing the FB/Android (no latency) case and 1024 the
>> (max latency) Oracle case?
> For something like latency-<whatever>, I don't see the point of having
> such a wide range. The nice range is probably more than enough - and before
> even bothering about the range, we should probably agree on what the range
> should represent.
> If it's niceness, I read it as: positive latency-nice value means we're
> nice to latency, means we reduce it. So the further up you go, the more you
> restrict your wakeup scan. I think it's quite easy to map that into the
> code: current behaviour at 0, with a decreasing scan mask size as we go
> towards +19. I don't think anyone needs 512 steps to tune this.
> I don't know what logic we'd follow for negative values though. Maybe
> latency-nice -20 means always going through the slowpath, but what of the
> intermediate values?
Yep, I think so fare we are all converging towards the idea to use the
a signed range. Regarding the range itself, yes: 1024 looks very
oversized, but +-20 is still something which leave room for a bit of
flexibility and it also better matches the idea that we don't want to
"enumerate behaviours" but just expose a knob. To map certain "bias" we
could benefit from a slightly larger range.
> AFAICT this RFC only looks at wakeups, but I guess latency-nice can be
For the wakeup path there is also the TurboSched proposal by Parth:
we should keep in mind.
> applied elsewhere (e.g. load-balance, something like task_hot() and its
> use of sysctl_sched_migration_cost).
For LB can you come up with some better description of what usages you
see could benefit from a "per task" or "per task-group" latency niceness?