Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:37:43 +0100 | From | Patrick Bellasi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller |
| |
On 05-Jun 07:44, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello,
Hi,
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:39:50PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > Which means we will enforce the effective values as: > > > > /tg1/tg11: > > > > util_min.effective=0 > > i.e. keep the child protection since smaller than parent > > > > util_max.effective=800 > > i.e. keep parent limit since stricter than child > > > > Please shout if I got it wrong, otherwise I'll update v10 to > > implement the above logic. > > Everything sounds good to me. Please note that cgroup interface files > actually use literal "max" for limit/protection max settings so that 0 > and "max" mean the same things for all limit/protection knobs.
Lemme see if I've got it right, do you mean that we can:
1) write the _string_ "max" into a cgroup attribute to:
- set 0 for util_max, since it's a protection - set 1024 for util_min, since it's a limit
2) write the _string_ "0" into a cgroup attribute to:
- set 1024 for util_max, since it's a protection - set 0 for util_min, since it's a limit
Is that correct or it's just me totally confused?
> Thanks. > > -- > tejun
Cheers, Patrick
-- #include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
| |