Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262000AbVAZH2U (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:28:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262372AbVAZH2T (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:28:19 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:49292 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262000AbVAZH2H (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:28:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:27:12 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Jack O'Quin" Cc: Paul Davis , Con Kolivas , linux , rlrevell@joe-job.com, CK Kernel , utz , Andrew Morton , alexn@dsv.su.se, Rui Nuno Capela , Chris Wright , Arjan van de Ven , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: /proc/sys/kernel/rt_cpu_limit tunable Message-ID: <20050126072712.GA1821@elte.hu> References: <87wtu6fho8.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050122165458.GA14426@elte.hu> <87hdl940ph.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050124085902.GA8059@elte.hu> <20050124125814.GA31471@elte.hu> <87k6q2umla.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050125083724.GA4812@elte.hu> <87oefdfaxp.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050125214900.GA9421@elte.hu> <87sm4osrix.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sm4osrix.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1858 Lines: 42 * Jack O'Quin wrote: > >> The equivalent rlimits experiment probably requires: > >> > >> (1) editing /etc/security/limits.conf > >> (2) shutting everything down > >> (3) logout > >> (4) login > >> (5) restarting the test > > > > well, there's setrlimit, so you could add a jackd client callback that > > instructs all clients to change their RT_CPU_RATIO rlimit. In theory we > > could try to add a new rlimit syscall that changes another task's rlimit > > (right now the syscalls only allow the changing of the rlimit of the > > current task) - that would enable utilities to change the rlimit of all > > tasks in the system, achieving the equivalent of a global sysctl. > > Sure, we could. That does seem like an enormously complicated > mechanism to accomplish something so simple. We are taking a global > per-CPU limit, treating it as if it were per-process, then invoking a > complex callback scheme to propagate new values, [...] this was just a suggestion. It seems a remote-rlimit syscall is possible, so there's no need to change Jack if you dont want to - that syscall enables a utility that will change the rlimit for all running tasks, so you'll get the 'simplicity of experimentation' of a global sysctl. (what you wont get is the ultra-fast time-to-market property of sysctl hacks. I know that you'd probably prefer a global sysctl that you could start using tomorrow, and i also know that the global sysctl would suffice current Jackd needs, but we cannot sacrifice flexibility and future utility for the sake of a couple of weeks/months of time advantage...) Ingo - 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/