[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130619184238.GD21522@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:42:40 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/nohz: add sysctl control over
sched_tick_max_deferment
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:58:28PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Allow sysctl override of sched_tick_max_deferment in order to ease
> finding/fixing the remaining issues with full nohz.
>
> The value to be written is in jiffies, and -1 means the max deferment
> is disabled (scheduler_tick_max_deferment() returns KTIME_MAX.)
>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
This looks like a useful thing but I wonder if a debugfs file would
be more appropriate than sysctl.
The scheduler tick max deferment is supposed to be a temporary
hack so we probably don't want to bring a real user ABI for that.
I believe sysctl is for permanent ABIs, right?
--
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