[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190624174607.GQ657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:46:07 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...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>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 13/16] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps
Hello, Patrick.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 06:34:05PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:42:14AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > Since it can be interesting for userspace, e.g. system management
> > > software, to know exactly what the currently propagated/enforced
> > > configuration is, the effective clamp values are exposed to user-space
> > > by means of a new pair of read-only attributes
> > > cpu.util.{min,max}.effective.
> >
> > Can we not add the effective interface file for now?
>
> You mean just the (read-only) user-space API right?
Yeah.
> I found it quite convenient, even just for debugging.
> Moreover it allows a container to know what it's exactly getting...
I fully agree.
> > I don't think it's a bad idea but would like to think more about it.
> > For cpuset, it was needed because configuration was so interwoven
> > with the effective masks, but we don't generally do this for other
> > min/max or weight knobs, all of which have effective hierarchical
> > values and I'm not quite sure about adding .effective for all of
> > them.
> > It could be that that's what we end up doing eventually but
> > I'd like to think a bit more about it.
>
> ... but I see your point and, since it's not strictly required, I
> think we can drop it in v11. Will check better if it's of any use
> apart from debugging/testing support.
Yeah, I just wanna figure out a plan which works for other controllers
too. It could be that the right thing to do is just adding .effective
to everything but idk I need to think more about it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists