Use rt instead of realtime #606
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I don't have strong opinion on this, rt is widely used as present of realtime, it makes the name shorter and cleaner. And this is also the naming method which Linux kernel use. We can consider this before 1.0 when we still have chance. Signed-off-by: Qiang Huang <[email protected]>
cyphar
reviewed
Nov 2, 2016
config-linux.md
Outdated
| * **`period`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - specifies a period of time in microseconds for how regularly a cgroup's access to CPU resources should be reallocated (CFS scheduler only). | ||
|
|
||
| * **`realtimeRuntime`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - specifies a period of time in microseconds for the longest continuous period in which the tasks in a cgroup have access to CPU resources | ||
| * **`rtRuntime`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - specifies a period of time in microseconds for the longest continuous period in which the tasks in a cgroup have access to CPU resources. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should mention the realtime scheduler as with rtPeriod.
cyphar
reviewed
Nov 2, 2016
config-linux.md
Outdated
| * **`rtRuntime`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - specifies a period of time in microseconds for the longest continuous period in which the tasks in a cgroup have access to CPU resources. | ||
|
|
||
| * **`realtimePeriod`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - same as **`period`** but applies to realtime scheduler only | ||
| * **`rtPeriod`** *(uint64, OPTIONAL)* - same as **`period`** but applies to realtime scheduler only. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with the change, but I'd prefer if we wrote realtime (RT) scheduler to make it clear where rt comes from.
Contributor
Author
|
@cyphar Updated, thanks. |
Member
|
I'm somewhere between neutral and -1 on this change -- IMO, the verbose name is more immediately obvious, but I don't feel strongly enough to block the PR if other maintainers disagree 👍 |
Contributor
|
LGTM |
Collaborator
Contributor
Author
|
OK, let's keep it as it is, thanks guys. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I don't have strong opinion on this,
rtis widely usedas present of
realtime, it makes the name shorter andcleaner. And this is also the naming method which Linux
kernel use.
We can consider this before 1.0 when we still have chance.
Signed-off-by: Qiang Huang [email protected]