[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070502034628.GB7311@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:16:28 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.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 Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:25:35PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > - 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.
yeah i agree. Group limit(s) should not be changing so frequently.
> > 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?
p->load_weight essentially depends on two things:
- nice value or static priority (which is per process, already present
in task_struct)
- class limit (which is per class)
So in theory we can eliminate the load_weight field in task_struct and
compute it at runtime from the above two fields, although it will be
slightly inefficient I guess to compute the value every time a task is
added to the runqueue. If that is not desirable, then we can stick with
option 1 (walk task list and change member task's->load_weight upon class
limit change).
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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