From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] sched/fair: cpu time reserves for cgroups Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:26:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20160516122645.GO3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <146339085068.25295.7687045977863852568.stgit@buzz> <20160516111849.GN3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5739BB7E.8010902@yandex-team.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5739BB7E.8010902-XoJtRXgx1JseBXzfvpsJ4g@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Konstantin Khlebnikov Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:22:22PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > >You forgot to explain why I should care about this. > > As I told this works as low-limit or high-limit which allow to > control cpu time distribution without hard limits and throttling. That's what it does; I get that. However nothing tells me why I should care about it. IOW, its a solution without a problem, and I tend to ignore those -- saves a lot of time on my end. > Present quota/hard limit has well known problems when it throttle task > inside kernel where it holds mutexes. Also it's too strict and doesn't > allow utilization of unused cpu time. See; now you're starting to make sense. You cannot have a patch if you don't have a problem. And this series didn't have a problem to solve. As for the latter; that's a feature for many people I'm told.