Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add latency_nice priority

[Qais Yousef]

On 04/09/22 13:28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:08:41 +0100
> Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > One other corner case to consider if you're working on next version is what
> > should happen when there are multiple tasks of the same priority on the rq. RT
> > scheduler will push/pull tasks to ensure the task will get to run ASAP if
> > there's another cpu at lower priority is available. Seems a lot of complexity
> > to add to CFS, but at the same time if 2 important tasks require low latency
> > are on the same rq, one of them will suffer without introducing the ability to
> > migrate one of them where it can get to run sooner.
> 
> Instead of having the greedy algorithm of the RT push/pull logic, how
> hard would it be to have the load balancer know of these tasks, and try
> to keep them on different CPUs? When two are queued on the same CPU,

Oh yeah I didn't think we need to replicate push/pull. Load balancer will need
to know about it when it moves task so that it avoids placing two of these asks
on the same cpu.

> could it be possible to just trigger load balancing and let it do the
> work?

I think the other part will need to be at wake up when we decide the CPU.

If we trigger the load balancing instead then it'd behave like a push/pull?

All these paths are already complex though. So we need to carefully analyze the
trade-offs. Maybe we don't need to deliver such level of service after all. It
needs more thinking and experimenting.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef