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.
