lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > > [...] the only 'issue' I have is the cgroup abi muck. We clearly
> > > > need a bit more discussion on what/how we want things there but
> > > > there are no easy answers :/ So I'd say lets try this and see where
> > > > we'll find ourselves.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest we leave out the cgroup ABI muck from the first round of
> > > upstream merge - do it in a second round, that will give it more
> > > attention.
> >
> > I'm afraid that'd give rise to some very weird situations for people
> > using cgroups :/
>
> Why? One solution would be to just not offer bandwidth management
> initially - but use some sane default.
>
> Yes, this doesn't offer "true" deadline scheduling yet, but would allow us
> to move most of the code upstream, without any ABI changes initially
> (other than adding the SCHED_DEADLINE policy and such).

I suppose we could keep the global sysctl thingies but indeed ignore all
the cgroup limits for now. That would allow some admission control but
leaves out the hairiest part.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-14 16:21    [W:0.070 / U:3.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site