On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:34:35PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi
wrote:
> Am I missing something?
No, it's rather my misinterpretation of the syscall semantics.
> Otherwise, I think the changelog sentence you quoted is just
> misleading.
It certainly mislead me to thinking about the sched_setattr calls
On 15-Jul 18:42, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:43:56AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi
> wrote:
> > This mimics what already happens for a task's CPU affinity mask when the
> > task is also in a cpuset, i.e. cgroup attributes are always used to
> > restrict per-task attributes.
> If I
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:43:56AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi
wrote:
> This mimics what already happens for a task's CPU affinity mask when the
> task is also in a cpuset, i.e. cgroup attributes are always used to
> restrict per-task attributes.
If I am not mistaken when set_schedaffinity(2) call is
When a task specific clamp value is configured via sched_setattr(2), this
value is accounted in the corresponding clamp bucket every time the task is
{en,de}qeued. However, when cgroups are also in use, the task specific
clamp values could be restricted by the task_group (TG) clamp values.
Update
4 matches
Mail list logo