Re: [RFC 1/8] sched: Add nice value change notifier

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi,

On 06/10/2021 08:58, Barry Song wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:15 PM Wanghui (John) <john.wanghui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

HI Tvrtko

On 2021/10/4 22:36, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
   void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
   {
       bool queued, running;
-     int old_prio;
+     int old_prio, ret;
       struct rq_flags rf;
       struct rq *rq;

@@ -6915,6 +6947,9 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)

   out_unlock:
       task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
+
+     ret = atomic_notifier_call_chain(&user_nice_notifier_list, nice, p);
+     WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != NOTIFY_DONE);
   }
How about adding a new "io_nice" to task_struct,and move the call chain to
sched_setattr/getattr, there are two benefits:

We already have an ionice for block io scheduler. hardly can this new io_nice
be generic to all I/O. it seems the patchset is trying to link
process' nice with
GPU's scheduler, to some extent, it makes more senses than having a
common ionice because we have a lot of IO devices in the systems, we don't
know which I/O the ionice of task_struct should be applied to.

Maybe we could have an ionice dedicated for GPU just like ionice for CFQ
of bio/request scheduler.

Thought crossed my mind but I couldn't see the practicality of a 3rd nice concept. I mean even to start with I struggle a bit with the usefulness of existing ionice vs nice. Like coming up with practical examples of usecases where it makes sense to decouple the two priorities.

From a different angle I did think inheriting CPU nice makes sense for GPU workloads. This is because today, and more so in the future, computations on a same data set do flow from one to the other.

Like maybe a simple example of batch image processing where CPU decodes, GPU does a transform and then CPU encodes. Or a different mix, doesn't really matter, since the main point it is one computing pipeline from users point of view.

In this example perhaps everything could be handled in userspace so that's another argument to be had. Userspace could query the current scheduling attributes before submitting work to the processing pipeline and adjust using respective uapi.

Downside would be inability to react to changes after the work is already running which may not be too serious limitation outside the world of multi-minute compute workloads. And latter are probably special case enough that would be configured explicitly.


1. Decoupled with fair scheduelr. In our use case, high priority tasks often
     use rt scheduler.

Is it possible to tell GPU RT as we are telling them CFS nice?

Yes of course. We could create a common notification "data packet" which would be sent from both entry points and provide more data than just the nice value. Consumers (of the notifier chain) could then decide for themselves what they want to do with the data.

Regards,

Tvrtko


2. The range of value don't need to be bound to -20~19 or 0~139


could build a mapping between the priorities of process and GPU. It seems
not a big deal.

Thanks
barry




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux