archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: Tejun Heo <>
	"Michal Koutný" <>,
	"Christian Brauner" <>,
	"Zefan Li" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:32:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 07:39:03PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> cc'ing Michal and Christian who've been spending some time on cgroup
> interface issues recently and Li Zefan for cpuset.
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:10:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The cgroup interface now uses a 'core_sched' file, which still takes 0,1. It is
> > however changed such that you can have nested tags. The for any given task, the
> > first parent with a cookie is the effective one. The rationale is that this way
> > you can delegate subtrees and still allow them some control over grouping.
> I find it difficult to like the proposed interface from the name (the term
> "core" is really confusing given how the word tends to be used internally)
> to the semantics (it isn't like anything else) and even the functionality
> (we're gonna have fixed processors at some point, right?).

Core is the topological name for the thing that hosts the SMT threads.
Can't really help that.

> Here are some preliminary thoughts:
> * Are both prctl and cgroup based interfaces really necessary? I could be
>   being naive but given that we're (hopefully) working around hardware
>   deficiencies which will go away in time, I think there's a strong case for
>   minimizing at least the interface to the bare minimum.

I'm not one for cgroups much, so I'll let others argue that case, except
that per systemd and all the other new fangled shit, people seem to use
cgroups a lot to group tasks. So it makes sense to also expose this
through cgroups in some form.

That said; I've had requests from lots of non security folks about this
feature to help mitigate the SMT interference.

Consider for example Real-Time. If you have an active SMT sibling, the
CPU performance is much less than it would be when the SMT sibling is
idle. Therefore, for the benefit of determinism, it would be very nice
if RT tasks could force-idle their SMT siblings, and voila, this
interface allows exactly that.

The same is true for other workloads that care about interference.

>   Given how cgroups are set up (membership operations happening only for
>   seeding, especially with the new clone interface), it isn't too difficult
>   to synchronize process tree and cgroup hierarchy where it matters - ie.
>   given the right per-process level interface, restricting configuration for
>   a cgroup sub-hierarchy may not need any cgroup involvement at all. This
>   also nicely gets rid of the interaction between prctl and cgroup bits.

I've no idea what you mean :/ The way I use cgroups (when I have to, for
testing) is to echo the pid into /cgroup/foo/tasks. No clone or anything

None of my test machines come up with cgroupfs mounted, and any and all
cgroup setup is under my control.

> * If we *have* to have cgroup interface, I wonder whether this would fit a
>   lot better as a part of cpuset. If you squint just right, this can be
>   viewed as some dynamic form of cpuset. Implementation-wise, it probably
>   won't integrate with the rest but I think the feature will be less jarring
>   as a part of cpuset, which already is a bit of kitchensink anyway.

Not sure I agree, we do not change the affinity of things, we only
control who's allowed to run concurrently on SMT siblings. There could
be a cpuset partition split between the siblings and it would still work

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-06 15:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-01 13:10 Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 1/9] sched: Allow sched_core_put() from atomic context Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/9] sched: Implement core-sched assertions Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Trivial core scheduling cookie management Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 20:04   ` Josh Don
2021-04-02  7:13     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 4/9] sched: Default core-sched policy Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:33   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:31     ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched: prctl() core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 17:00   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-18  3:52     ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 6/9] kselftest: Add test for core sched prctl interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 7/9] sched: Cgroup core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-02  0:34   ` Josh Don
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 8/9] rbtree: Remove const from the rb_find_add() comparator Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched: prctl() and cgroup interaction Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-03  1:30   ` Josh Don
2021-04-06 15:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-04 23:39 ` [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Tejun Heo
2021-04-05 18:46   ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-06 14:16     ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-18  1:35       ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-19  9:00         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:45             ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-06 15:32   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-04-06 16:08     ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-07 18:39       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:50   ` Michal Koutný
2021-04-07 18:34     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-08 13:25       ` Michal Koutný
2021-04-08 15:02         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09  0:16           ` Josh Don
2021-04-19 11:30       ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-20  1:17         ` Josh Don

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox