On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:41:38AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:46:16PM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:47:36PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutsemov wrote:
> > > From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup_timer_slack.c b/kernel/cgroup_timer_slack.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..a343a50
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup_timer_slack.c
<snip>
> > > +static int tslack_write_set_slack_ns(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cft,
> > > + u64 val)
> > > +{
> > > + struct timer_slack_cgroup *tslack_cgroup;
> > > + struct cgroup_iter it;
> > > + struct task_struct *task;
> > > +
> > > + tslack_cgroup = cgroup_to_tslack_cgroup(cgroup);
> > > + if (!val || val < tslack_cgroup->min_slack_ns ||
> >
> > Why is a val of 0 disallowed? I know having slack is good, but for
> > an administrator or tool that doesn't care about number of wakeups
> > and cares more about wringing out performance a slack of
> > 0 seems acceptable. Is this just here to be consistent with the
> > values passed in via prctl?
>
> Yes, it's to consistent with the prctl(). I don't think that it's good
> idea to allow to set timer_slack outside of range prctl() allows. It may
> lead to interface abuse.
Hmm, I was just thinking that 0 timer slack might be useful. But I
suppose you could just as easily set it to 1 and nobody would notice.
> > > + val > tslack_cgroup->max_slack_ns )
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Shouldn't it be EPERM and not EINVAL?
> >
> > The write(2) man page says: "Other errors may occur, depending on the
> > object connected to fd." So I think EPERM is fine and more descriptive.
>
> What do you think about -EINVAL for (val == 0) and -EPERM for rest?
OK, that makes sense to me given both of our points above.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
