Re: [PATCH v9 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller
From: Patrick Bellasi
Date: Wed Jun 05 2019 - 11:41:50 EST
On 05-Jun 07:44, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?