[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29Ns5TdiiYZvY3sdA-Twgcvt3pOnRmZq4WSzoesxBrFmPeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 16:54:09 -0700
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:13 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Interface-wise, writing 1 to idle file is fine. This does move away
> the interface from being a purely semantical weight tree, which is a
> concern and I have a difficult time seeing that the stated benefits
> are significant enough to justify the changes. That said, this is
> primarily a scheduler decision, so if you think the addition is
> justified, please go ahead.
Thanks for taking a look Tejun. I won't restate the use-cases from
past threads here, but ideally the capabilities introduced in this
series will make SCHED_IDLE more useful (internally, we've certainly
found that to be the case :)).
Best,
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists