[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170412122215.GF3093@worktop>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:22:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/5] Add capacity capping support to the CPU controller
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:58:33PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> Sorry, I don't get instead what are the "confusing nesting properties"
> you are referring to?
If a parent group sets min=.2 and max=.8, what are the constraints on
its child groups for setting their resp min and max?
I can't immediately gives rules that would make sense.
For instance, allowing a child to lower min would violate the parent
constraint, while allowing a child to increase min would grant the child
more resources than the parent.
Neither seem like a good thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists