[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4eqnoqtpk2gbrr3cgukm672eljyrl7us5ozuy5q5ib2ln7itzf@bg3kt473ly2l>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:04:52 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add kernel cmdline option for rt_group_sched
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 08:41:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> We all hate this thing and want it to go away. So not being able to use
> it is a pro from where I'm at.
I understand and to some extent am not a fan of it neither (we had
disabled it in SUSE quite some time ago). I'd consider the remaining
existing users legacy.
> Sadly the replacement isn't there yet either, which makes it all really
> difficult.
Exactly. Thus the runtime switch is meant as a bridge for general
purpose distros where a kernel is shipped pre-configured (i.e. one
config where the default is non-grouped not to hinder the majority use
cases).
Considering the legacy usecases on distribution kernels do you oppose
the chosen approach? I can work on changes if you have comments on the
implementation itself.
Thanks,
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists