[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070418194339.GA26739@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:43:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> For example, maybe we can approximate it by spreading out the
> statistics: right now you have things like
>
> - last_ran, wait_runtime, sum_wait_runtime..
>
> be per-thread things. [...]
yes, yes, yes! :) My thinking is "struct sched_group" embedded into
_arbitrary_ other resource containers and abstractions, which
sched_group's are then in a simple hierarchy and are driven by the core
scheduling machinery.
> [...] Maybe some of those can be spread out, so that you put a part of
> them in the "struct vm_struct" thing (to approximate processes), part
> of them in the "struct user" struct (to approximate the user-level
> thing), and part of it in a per-container thing for when/if we support
> that kind of thing?
yes.
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