On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:08:57PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18:16AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > If we're gonna do this, let's please do it right and make weight based > > control work too. Otherwise, its usefulness is pretty limited. > > Ok, understood. > > Doing it as presented is an incremental step and all that's required for > this. I figured weight could be added later with the first user that > actually needs it. > > I did prototype weight too, though, just to see if it was all gonna work > together, so given how the discussion elsewhere in the thread is going, > I might respin the scheduler part of this with another use case and > weight-based control included. > > I got this far, do the interface and CFS skeleton seem sane? Both are s/CFS/CFS bandwidth/ > basically unchanged with weight-based control included, the weight parts > are just more code on top. > > Thanks for looking.
