From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF02C28D18 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18785208C3 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728442AbfFEPht (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:37:49 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33902 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726581AbfFEPht (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:37:49 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AE0374; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.43]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FB373F246; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:37:43 +0100 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller Message-ID: <20190605153742.lusoiodrzxmpsrvd@e110439-lin> References: <20190515094459.10317-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190515094459.10317-13-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190531153545.GE374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20190603122725.GB19426@darkstar> <20190605140324.GL374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20190605143805.olk2ta5p2jnd4mjt@e110439-lin> <20190605144450.GN374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190605144450.GN374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05-Jun 07:44, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Hi, > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:39:50PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > Which means we will enforce the effective values as: > > > > /tg1/tg11: > > > > util_min.effective=0 > > i.e. keep the child protection since smaller than parent > > > > util_max.effective=800 > > i.e. keep parent limit since stricter than child > > > > Please shout if I got it wrong, otherwise I'll update v10 to > > implement the above logic. > > Everything sounds good to me. Please note that cgroup interface files > actually use literal "max" for limit/protection max settings so that 0 > and "max" mean the same things for all limit/protection knobs. Lemme see if I've got it right, do you mean that we can: 1) write the _string_ "max" into a cgroup attribute to: - set 0 for util_max, since it's a protection - set 1024 for util_min, since it's a limit 2) write the _string_ "0" into a cgroup attribute to: - set 1024 for util_max, since it's a protection - set 0 for util_min, since it's a limit Is that correct or it's just me totally confused? > Thanks. > > -- > tejun Cheers, Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi