On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In that case I guess I'll have to add signed versions of the
> > read_uint/write_uint methods.
>
> Yes, I looked at that, I found the interface somewhat unfortunate, it
> would mean growing the struct with two mor
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 12:02 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If so, could we avoid that problem by using 0 rather than -1 as the
> > > "unlimited" value? It looks from what I've read in the Documentation
> > > changes
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If so, could we avoid that problem by using 0 rather than -1 as the
> > "unlimited" value? It looks from what I've read in the Documentation
> > changes as though 0 isn't really a meaningful value.
>
> 0 means no ti
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 11:48 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +static int cpu_rt_runtime_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> > + struct file *file,
> > +
On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int cpu_rt_runtime_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> + struct file *file,
> + const char __user *userbuf,
> +
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:03:01 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Change the rt_ratio interface to rt_runtime_us, to match rt_period_us.
> This avoids picking a granularity for the ratio.
>
> Extend the /sys/kernel/uids// interface to allow setting
> the group's rt_runtime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zij
Change the rt_ratio interface to rt_runtime_us, to match rt_period_us.
This avoids picking a granularity for the ratio.
Extend the /sys/kernel/uids// interface to allow setting
the group's rt_runtime.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-ui
7 matches
Mail list logo
