[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YQwcIpnKq3TYYIIL@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 07:13:06 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, 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@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 12:18:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I'm tempted to apply this, but last time TJ wasn't liking it much for
> the interface or somesuch. His argument that this encodes the
> hierarchical scheduling behaviour, but I'm not really buying that
> argument, as it doesn't really add more constraints than we already have
> by the hierarchical relative weight.
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.
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists