Re: [Discussion v2] Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute

2019-10-07 Thread Tim Chen
On 10/2/19 9:11 AM, David Laight wrote: > From: Parth Shah >> Sent: 30 September 2019 11:44 > ... >> 5> Separating AVX512 tasks and latency sensitive tasks on separate cores >> ( -Tim Chen ) >> === >> Another usecase we are

Re: [Discussion v2] Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute

2019-10-07 Thread Parth Shah
On 10/2/19 9:41 PM, David Laight wrote: > From: Parth Shah >> Sent: 30 September 2019 11:44 > ... >> 5> Separating AVX512 tasks and latency sensitive tasks on separate cores >> ( -Tim Chen ) >> === >> Another usecase we are

RE: [Discussion v2] Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute

2019-10-02 Thread David Laight
From: Parth Shah > Sent: 30 September 2019 11:44 ... > 5> Separating AVX512 tasks and latency sensitive tasks on separate cores > ( -Tim Chen ) > === > Another usecase we are considering is to segregate those workload that

[Discussion v2] Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute

2019-09-30 Thread Parth Shah
Hello everyone, This is the v2 of the discussion started for introducing per-task latency-nice attribute for providing scheduler hints. v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/18/555 In brief, we face two challenges with the introduction of such attr. 1. Name: == ( Should be relevant to