[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:08:07 +0200
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15
On 06/06/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...] and my tree already contains the fixes for rt task's
> > exec_start.
>
> Can I have this snapshot pls? I have to deal with the same issue when
> the current task switches groups and I was planning to fix it by
> introducing a set_curr_task() method in fair_sched_class which
> initializes exec_start and other fields for that task.
Hum.. what about accounting 'exec_time' and updating 'exec_start' in
rt_sched :: dequeue_task_rt() instead (like update_curr() does it in
dequeue_task_fair())?
This way, on RT -> NORMAL transition.. some 'delta_exec' ( between
deactivate_task() ---> activate_task() ) will be accounted later as if
the task was 'sched_fair_class' during this time.. which I think makes
some sense. What do you think?
sched_setscheduler()
{
...
on_rq = p->on_rq;
if (on_rq)
deactivate_task(rq, p, 0);
oldprio = p->prio;
__setscheduler(rq, p, policy, param->sched_priority);
if (on_rq) {
activate_task(rq, p, 0);
...
> --
> Regards,
> vatsa
>
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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