From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756227Ab1JQPTk (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:19:40 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:37669 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752734Ab1JQPTi (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:19:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:19:20 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Arjan van de Ven , Lennart Poettering , Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Paul Menage , Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Helsley , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Kay Sievers , harald@redhat.com, david@fubar.dk, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: [PATCH, v10 3/3] cgroups: introduce timer slack controller Message-ID: <20111017151920.GA16664@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1318837019.6594.29.camel@twins> <20111017124647.GA12838@srcf.ucam.org> <1318856786.4172.22.camel@twins> <20111017141147.GA14581@srcf.ucam.org> <1318861707.4172.32.camel@twins> <20111017144013.GA15447@srcf.ucam.org> <1318862969.4172.45.camel@twins> <20111017145952.GB15769@srcf.ucam.org> <1318864260.4172.54.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1318864260.4172.54.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 15:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I'm not saying that it's a problem. I'm saying that your approach > > changes behavioural semantics in a way that may violate application > > expectations just as surely as changing the timer behaviour does. > > There's no free approach. > > I'm not saying its free, I'm saying its a much better approach since it > gets rid of the entire problem instead of papering over the worst of it. It solves it for a specific case, ie animations. Any other timer driven behaviour continues. It really does need to be tied to session idle, not application visibility, and enforcement at the X level does nothing to help that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org