[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKaWl7A6N5Jyyi01@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 13:04:23 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>
Cc: Huaixin Chang <changhuaixin@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
pauld@...head.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched/fair: Introduce the burstable CFS controller
Hello, Odin.
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:00:29PM +0200, Odin Ugedal wrote:
> > cpu.max
> > A read-write two value file which exists on non-root cgroups.
> > The default is "max 100000".
>
> This will become a "three value file", and I know a few user space projects
> who parse this file by splitting on the middle space. I am not sure if they are
> "wrong", but I don't think we usually break such things. Not sure what
> Tejun thinks about this.
Good point. I haven't thought about that. It would make more sense to
separate it out to a separate file then - e.g. sth like cpu.max.burst, but
it seems like there are important questions to answer before adding new
interfaces.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists