[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190605144450.GN374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 07:44:50 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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
Hello,
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.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists