Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support

[Vincent Guittot]

On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 19:12, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I would prefer a signed range like the [-1000:1000] as the behavior is
> > different for sensitive and non sensitive task unlike the cpu.weight
> > which is reflect that a bigger value get more
>
> How about just sticking with .nice?

Looks good to me. I will just implement the cpu.latency.nice

>
> --
> tejun