[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFCAXeZj6sXBI5Ls@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:54:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Huaixin Chang <changhuaixin@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...hat.com,
odin@...d.al, odin@...dal.com, pauld@...head.com, pjt@...gle.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com, tj@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] sched/fair: Introduce primitives for CFS
bandwidth burst
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:49:28PM +0800, Huaixin Chang wrote:
> @@ -8982,6 +8983,12 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 quota)
> if (quota != RUNTIME_INF && quota > max_cfs_runtime)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /*
> + * Bound burst to defend burst against overflow during bandwidth shift.
> + */
> + if (burst > max_cfs_runtime)
> + return -EINVAL;
Why do you allow such a large burst? I would expect something like:
if (burst > quote)
return -EINVAL;
That limits the variance in the system. Allowing super long bursts seems
to defeat the entire purpose of bandwidth control.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists