Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:50:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
        michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it,
        luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@gmail.com,
        liming.wang@windriver.com, jkacur@redhat.com,
        harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        bruce.ashfield@windriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8
Message-ID: <20131014135040.GF28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1381747426-31334-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com>
 <20131014122424.GK3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131014123855.GA25046@gmail.com>
 <20131014132219.GL3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131014133638.GA26319@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131014133638.GA26319@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1455
Lines: 33

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/