[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190905133200.4w4cupgxgeym3l2k@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:32:01 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
steven.sistare@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, parth@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice
On 09/05/19 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:40:01PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Right, although I think behaviours could still be exported but via a
> > different and configurable interface, using thresholds.
>
> I would try _really_ hard to avoid pinning down behaviour. The more you
> do that, the less you can change.
While I agree with that but I find there's a contradiction between not
'pinning down behavior' and 'easy and clear way to bias latency sensitive from
end user's perspective'.
Maybe we should protect this with a kconfig + experimental tag until trial
and error show the best way forward?
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists