Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:52:19PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:

> > 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?

No, I think that's fine.

Altough now you have me worrying about per root_domain settings and the
like. But I think we can do that with additional interfaces, if needed.

So yes, please go with that.

And agreed, a full CFS server is a bit outside scope for this patch-set.