On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:40:58AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The main point is, should someone prove me wrong and come up a smarter way > at some point in the future, then "drm.weight" as an ABI remains compatible > and the improvement can happen completely under the hood. In the mean time > users get external control, and _some_ ability to improve the user > experience with the scenarios such as I described yesterday. I'm on board now. (I've done a mental switch of likening this rather to existing IO control (higher variance of quanta size, worse preemption, limited effect) than CPU control.) > Cgroup tree hierarchy modifications being the reason for not converging can > also happen, but I thought I can hand wave that as not a realistic scenario. > Perhaps I am not imaginative enough? My suggestion: simply skip offlined drmcgs instead of restarting whole iteration. (A respawning cgroup-wrapped job or intentionally adverse respawner could in my imagination cause that.) > Under or over-accounting for migrating tasks I don't think can happen since > I am explicitly handling that. I'll reply to the patch for better context... Regards, Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
