From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:29:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20190603122929.GC19426@darkstar> References: <20190515094459.10317-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190515094459.10317-13-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190531153545.GE374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190531153545.GE374014@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "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 List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 31-May 08:35, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Patrick. > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:44:55AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: [...] > For proportions (as opposed to weights), we use percentage rational > numbers - e.g. 38.44 for 38.44%. I have parser and doc update commits > pending. I'll put them on cgroup/for-5.3. That's a point worth discussing with Peter, we already changed one time from percentages to 1024 scale. Utilization clamps are expressed as percentages by definition, they are just expressed in a convenient 1024 scale which should not be alien to people using those knobs. If we wanna use a "more specific" name like uclamp.{min,max} then we should probably also accept to use a "more specific" metric, don't we? I personally like the [0..1024] range, but I guess that's really up to you and Peter to agree upon. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun Cheers, Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi