Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/20/20 10:24, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> index ad5b88a53c5a..0272ae8c6147 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> @@ -465,6 +465,13 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
> >>  		.mode		= 0644,
> >>  		.proc_handler	= sysctl_sched_uclamp_handler,
> >>  	},
> >> +	{
> >> +		.procname	= "sched_rt_default_util_clamp_min",
> 
> root@h960:~# find / -name "*util_clamp*"
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_default_util_clamp_min
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_util_clamp_max
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_util_clamp_min
> 
> IMHO, keeping the common 'sched_util_clamp_' would be helpful here, e.g.
> 
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_util_clamp_rt_default_min

All RT related knobs are prefixed with 'sched_rt'. I kept the 'util_clamp_min'
coherent with the current sysctl (sched_util_clamp_min). Quentin suggested
adding 'default' to be more obvious, so I ended up with

	'sched_rt' + '_default' + '_util_clamp_min'.

I think this is the logical and most consistent form. Given that Patrick seems
to be okay with the 'default' now, does this look good to you too?

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux