lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 07:44:50 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <>
Cc:,,, Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
        Vincent Guittot <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Paul Turner <>,
        Quentin Perret <>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <>,
        Morten Rasmussen <>,
        Juri Lelli <>,
        Todd Kjos <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Steve Muckle <>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup


On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:39:50PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> Which means we will enforce the effective values as:
>    /tg1/tg11:
>          util_min.effective=0
>             i.e. keep the child protection since smaller than parent
>          util_max.effective=800
>             i.e. keep parent limit since stricter than child
> Please shout if I got it wrong, otherwise I'll update v10 to
> implement the above logic.

Everything sounds good to me.  Please note that cgroup interface files
actually use literal "max" for limit/protection max settings so that 0
and "max" mean the same things for all limit/protection knobs.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists