[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070415130416.GA4312@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:04:16 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
* Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com> wrote:
> I took a brief look at it. Have you tested priority inheritance?
yeah, you are right, it's broken at the moment, i'll fix it. But the
good news is that i think PI could become cleaner via scheduling
classes.
> As far as I can see rt_mutex_setprio doesn't have much effect on
> SCHED_FAIR/SCHED_BATCH. I am looking for a place where such a task
> change scheduler class when boosted in rt_mutex_setprio().
i think via scheduling classes we dont have to do the p->policy and
p->prio based gymnastics anymore, we can just have a clean look at
p->sched_class and stack the original scheduling class into
p->real_sched_class. It would probably also make sense to 'privatize'
p->prio into the scheduling class. That way PI would be a pure property
of sched_rt, and the PI scheduler would be driven purely by
p->rt_priority, not by p->prio. That way all the normal_prio() kind of
complications and interactions with SCHED_OTHER/SCHED_FAIR would be
eliminated as well. What do you think?
Ingo
-
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