Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/