On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:19:24PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > On 23-Jan 10:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:41:29PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > On 22-Jan 16:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:43:29PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > > > > Do you think that could be acceptable? > > > > > > > > Think so, it's a sysctl poke, 'nobody' ever does that. > > > > > > Cool, so... I'll keep lazy update for system default. > > > > Ah, I think I misunderstood. I meant to say that since nobody ever pokes > > at sysctl's it doesn't matter if its a little more expensive and iterate > > everything. > > Here I was more worried about the code complexity/overhead... for > something actually not very used/useful. > > > Also; if you always keep everything up-to-date, you can avoid doing that > > duplicate accounting. > > To update everything we will have to walk all the CPUs and update all > the RUNNABLE tasks currently enqueued, which are either RT or CFS. > > That's way more expensive both in code and time then what we do for > cgroups, where at least we have a limited scope since the cgroup > already provides a (usually limited) list of tasks to consider. > > Do you think it's really worth to have ? Dunno; the whole double bucket thing seems a bit weird to me; but maybe it will all look better without the mapping stuff.
