[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111017151920.GA16664@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:19:20 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, harald@...hat.com,
david@...ar.dk, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v10 3/3] cgroups: introduce timer slack controller
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 15:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm not saying that it's a problem. I'm saying that your approach
> > changes behavioural semantics in a way that may violate application
> > expectations just as surely as changing the timer behaviour does.
> > There's no free approach.
>
> I'm not saying its free, I'm saying its a much better approach since it
> gets rid of the entire problem instead of papering over the worst of it.
It solves it for a specific case, ie animations. Any other timer driven
behaviour continues. It really does need to be tied to session idle, not
application visibility, and enforcement at the X level does nothing to
help that.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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