Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755307Ab0AMJl1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:41:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755245Ab0AMJlZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:41:25 -0500 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:43224 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755218Ab0AMJlZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:41:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC 9/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: system wide bandwidth management From: Raistlin To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel , michael trimarchi , Fabio Checconi , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Dhaval Giani , Johan Eker , "p.faure" , Chris Friesen , Steven Rostedt , Henrik Austad , Frederic Weisbecker , Darren Hart , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Claudio Scordino , Tommaso Cucinotta , "giuseppe.lipari" , Juri Lelli In-Reply-To: <1262011449.7135.116.camel@laptop> References: <1255707324.6228.448.camel@Palantir> <1255707940.6228.464.camel@Palantir> <1262011449.7135.116.camel@laptop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Gz1nP96g+6ShOvpmkcrb" Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:41:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1263375683.3853.15.camel@Palantir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2051 Lines: 60 --=-Gz1nP96g+6ShOvpmkcrb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 15:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Default value is _zero_ bandwidth available, thus write some numbers in= those > > files before trying to start some SCHED_DEADLINE task. Setting runtime = > period > > is allowed (i.e., more than 100% bandwidth available for -deadline task= s), > > since it makes more than sense in SMP systems. >=20 > Right, so the current rt bandwidth controls go up to 100%, where 100% is > root_domain wide. That is, the bandwidth usage scale is irrespective of > the number of cpus. >=20 Yep, I know. Mine controls were working a little bit different because of the fact I have bandwidth control at the task group --not rq-- level. Anyway... > If that was the best choice could of course be argued, but since we have > that, it would be strange to add another set of controls which do not > conform. >=20 ... I again agree that consistency come first, and I'll move the controls in the right place, and convert them to the conforming behavior. Thanks and regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net / dario.faggioli@jabber.org --=-Gz1nP96g+6ShOvpmkcrb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAktNlUIACgkQk4XaBE3IOsRu7ACfbVMXqnXuAEDbyqsgsR2hX/J8 H9gAnRtvEJgNOWGVaBlT2yUCOH9dGPy+ =Ub5V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Gz1nP96g+6ShOvpmkcrb-- -- 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/