linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 9/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: system wide bandwidth management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1263375683.3853.15.camel@Palantir>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:41:23 +0100
From:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	michael trimarchi <michael@...dence.eu.com>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
	"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
	"giuseppe.lipari" <giuseppe.lipari@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 9/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: system wide bandwidth
 management

On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 15:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Default value is _zero_ bandwidth available, thus write some numbers in those
> > files before trying to start some SCHED_DEADLINE task. Setting runtime > period
> > is allowed (i.e., more than 100% bandwidth available for -deadline tasks),
> > since it makes more than sense in SMP systems.
> 
> Right, so the current rt bandwidth controls go up to 100%, where 100% is
> root_domain wide. That is, the bandwidth usage scale is irrespective of
> the number of cpus.
> 
Yep, I know. Mine controls were working a little bit different because
of the fact I have bandwidth control at the task group --not rq-- level.
Anyway...

> If that was the best choice could of course be argued, but since we have
> that, it would be strange to add another set of controls which do not
> conform.
> 
... I again agree that consistency come first, and I'll move the
controls in the right place, and convert them to the conforming
behavior.

Thanks and regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@...ga.net /
dario.faggioli@...ber.org

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)