On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:23:21 -0800 Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:12PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:00:15 +0100 > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Well, quite frankly, I'm not going to take this patch unless it > > > gets an ACK from the scheduler people (which I'm guessing is not > > > going to happen before hell freezes over). > > > > > > IOW, please find a better way to address the issue at hand. > > > > > We do have a real need that there is no exist feature in the kernel > > can provide solution for. You want ACK from scheduler people > > because it has impact on disabling irq? or you think scheduler > > should be the one that provide the solution. I did try cpu > > subsystem, but it seems to be limited to RT and certain scheduling > > policy e.g. RR and FIFO. > > I agree with Rafael. I think the scheduler should provide the solution > and it can be done via modifications to the cpu cgroup subsystem. > Yes, it only has the shares and rt-related files *right now*. However, > Kame replied earlier with a link to some patches for extending it > that introduce files with similar (granted: not the same) semantics: > > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-10/msg04335.html > > I think you could build on that and help push those patches towards > mainline along with your enhancements for reducing wakeups rather > than modify the freezer cgroup subsystem. > I will give CFS bandwidth control patches a try. See if I can be any help. Thanks. Jacob _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
