On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 15:42, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 02:44:22PM +0100, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Regarding the current use of latency nice to set a latency offset, the > > problem doesn't appear because latency offset applies between entities > > at the same level as you mentioned above > > Splendid, it turned out that way (latency nice analogous to bandwidth > nice). > > > Does my explanation above make sense to you ? > > Yes, thank you. > > Thus, I'd like to propose avoiding the use of "limit" in this context and > stress the horizontal scope. For example: > > > + This interface file allows reading and setting latency using the > > + same values used by sched_setattr(2). The latency_nice of a group is > > + used to limit the impact of the latency_nice of a task outside the > > + group. > > + This interface file allows reading and setting latency using the > + same values used by sched_setattr(2). The latency_nice of a group is > + used to modify group members' latency with respect to sibling groups. That sounds reasonable to me. > > Regards, > Michal
