Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761491AbZJMWDr (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:03:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761249AbZJMWDq (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:03:46 -0400 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([213.145.232.33]:49533 "EHLO MAIL.13thfloor.at" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761035AbZJMWDp (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:03:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:02:22 +0200 From: Herbert Poetzl To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, Bharata B Rao , Balbir Singh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dhaval Giani , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Gautham R Shenoy , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Avi Kivity , Chris Friesen , Paul Menage , Mike Waychison Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/8] CFS Hard limits - v2 Message-ID: <20091013220221.GH24787@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: Pavel Emelyanov , vatsa@in.ibm.com, Bharata B Rao , Balbir Singh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dhaval Giani , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Gautham R Shenoy , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Avi Kivity , Chris Friesen , Paul Menage , Mike Waychison References: <20090930124919.GA19951@in.ibm.com> <4AC35EDD.1080902@openvz.org> <20090930142537.GJ19951@in.ibm.com> <20090930143953.GA2014@in.ibm.com> <4AD466E5.4010206@openvz.org> <20091013120354.GF24787@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <4AD4705D.6020109@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AD4705D.6020109@openvz.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1262 Lines: 39 On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:19:41PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > as I already stated, it seems perfectly fine for me > > You're not the only one interested in it, sorry. Besides, I > got your point in "I'm find with it". Now get mine which is > about "I am not". > > can be trivially mapped to the two values, by chosing a > > fixed multiplicative base (let's say '1s' to simplify :) > > with 50%, you get 1s/0.5s > > with 20%, you get 1s/0.2s > > with 5%, you get 1s/0.05s > > well, you get the idea :) > No I don't. > Is 1s/0.5s worse or better than 2s/1s? > How should I make a choice? and because _you_ are unable to make a choice, you want that choice to be removed alltogether? don't you see that your suggestions are less powerful than the one provided by the patch, mainly because they are only a subset (depending on your choice) besides that, it _is_ trivial to map the percentage, but it isn't trivial to 'guess' what the user wants (i.e. the amount of interactivity) best, Herbert -- 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/