[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830705012025r64eed906sebe4b38d9977c036@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:25:35 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, xemul@...ru, dev@...ru, rohitseth@...gle.com,
pj@....com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, mbligh@...gle.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, serue@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 3/9] Containers (V9): Add tasks file interface
On 5/1/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> For the CPU controller I was working on, (a fast access to) such a list would
> have been valuable. Basically each task has a weight associated with it
> (p->load_weight) which is made to depend upon its class limit. Whenever
> the class limit changes, we need to go and change all its member task's
> ->load_weight value.
>
> If you don't maintain the per-container task list, I guess I could still
> work around it, by either:
>
> - Walk the task table and find relevant members
That doesn't seem like a terrible solution to me, unless you expect
the class limit to be changing incredibly frequently.
If we had multiple subsystems that needed to walk the container member
list on a fast-path operation (e.g. to make a scheduling decision)
that would be a good reason to maintain such a list.
> perhaps
> - Move p->load_weight to a class structure
Sounds like a good idea if you can do it - but if it's per-process,
how would it fit in the class structure?
Paul
-
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