[Intel-gfx] [RFC v3 00/12] DRM scheduling cgroup controller
Michal Koutný
mkoutny at suse.com
Fri Jan 27 13:00:34 UTC 2023
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:40:58AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20230127/5e499f10/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list