[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290282678.28711.23.camel@maggy.simson.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:51:18 -0700
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:33 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > So the set of all tasks that never call proc_set_tty() ends up in the same one
> > > big default group, correct?
> >
> > Well, yes and no.
> >
> > Yes, that's what the code currently does. But I did ask Mike (and he
> > delivered) to try to make the code look and work in a way where the
> > whole "tty thing" is just one of the heuristics.
> >
> > It's not clear exactly what the non-tty heuristics would be, but I do
> > have a few suggestions:
> >
> > - I think it might be a good idea to associate a task group with the
> > current "cred" of a process, and fall back on it in the absense of a
> > tty-provided one.
> >
> Or how about (just brainstorming here) a group per 'process group'?
I switched to per session, which on my system at least looks like more
than enough granularity.
-Mike
--
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