[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704181304250.25880@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 Mailing List <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]
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds 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. 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?
I think Ingo's idea of a new sched_group to contain the generic
parameters needed for the "key" calculation, works better than adding more
fields to existing strctures (that would, of course, host pointers to it).
Otherwise I can already the the struct_signal being the target for other
unrelated fields :)
- Davide
-
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