[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156156960.7772.38.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:42:40 +0000
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, sekharan@...ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] CPU controller - V1
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 23:10 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Salient design points of this patch:
>
> - Each task-group gets its own runqueue on every cpu.
>
> - In addition, there is an active and expired array of
> task-groups themselves. Task-groups who have expired their
> quota are put into expired array.
>
> - Task-groups have priorities. Priority of a task-group is the
> same as the priority of the highest-priority runnable task it
> has. This I feel will retain interactiveness of the system
> as it is today.
WRT interactivity: Looking at try_to_wake_up(), it appears that wake-up
of a high priority group-a task will not result in preemption of a lower
priority current group-b task. True?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists