> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:39:16PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > I'm not going to NAK because I do not have hard data that shows they must > exist. However, I won't ACK either because I bet a lot of tasty beverages > the next time we meet that the following parameters will generate reports > if removed. > > kernel.sched_latency_ns > kernel.sched_migration_cost_ns > kernel.sched_min_granularity_ns > kernel.sched_wakeup_granularity_ns > > I know they are altered by tuned for different profiles and some people do > go the effort to create custom profiles for specific applications. They > also show up in "Official Benchmarking" such as SPEC CPU 2017 and > some vendors put a *lot* of effort into SPEC CPU results for bragging > rights. They show up in technical books and best practice guids for > applications. Finally they show up in Google when searching for "tuning > sched_foo". I'm not saying that any of these are even accurate or a good > idea, just that they show up near the top of the results and they are > sufficiently popular that they might as well be an ABI. +1, these seem like sufficiently well-known scheduler tunables, and not really SCHED_DEBUG.
