[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090904123633.GA29253@snowie.trilan>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:36:33 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
To: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 PATCH 3/7] sched: Bandwidth initialization for fair
task groups
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:02:15PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:43:25PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:19:50PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > +config CFS_HARD_LIMITS
> > > + bool "Hard Limits for CFS Group Scheduler"
> > > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> > > + depends on FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> >
> > Shouldn't depend also on CGROUPS and CGROUP_SCHED? without them hard
> > limits can't be defined, right?
>
> Right, but do we need to explicitly mention CGROUPS as dependency since
> CGROUP_SCHED is already dependent on it ?
Correct, CGROUP_SCHED is enough.
Thanks,
-Andrea
--
Andrea Righi - Develer s.r.l
http://www.develer.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists