[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190603122929.GC19426@darkstar>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:29:29 +0100
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup
controller
On 31-May 08:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Patrick.
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:44:55AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
> For proportions (as opposed to weights), we use percentage rational
> numbers - e.g. 38.44 for 38.44%. I have parser and doc update commits
> pending. I'll put them on cgroup/for-5.3.
That's a point worth discussing with Peter, we already changed one
time from percentages to 1024 scale.
Utilization clamps are expressed as percentages by definition,
they are just expressed in a convenient 1024 scale which should not be
alien to people using those knobs.
If we wanna use a "more specific" name like uclamp.{min,max} then we
should probably also accept to use a "more specific" metric, don't we?
I personally like the [0..1024] range, but I guess that's really up to
you and Peter to agree upon.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
Cheers,
Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists