[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070924163525.GA12745@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:35:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dmitry.adamushko@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
menage@...gle.com, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Revert recent removal of set_curr_task()
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > (3) rework enqueue/dequeue_entity() to get rid of
> > sched_class::set_curr_task()
>
> Dmitry/Ingo,
> I am sorry for not having reviewed this change properly, but I
> think we need to revert this.
ah, i was wondering about that already. We can certainly skip that
optimization.
> In theory its possible to solve these problems w/o reintroducing
> set_curr_task(). I tried doing so, but found it clutters
> dequeue_entity and enqueue_entity a lot and makes it less readable. It
> will duplicate what put_prev_entity() and set_next_entity() are
> supposed to do. Moreoever it is slightly inefficient to do all these
> in dequeue_entity() if we consider that dequeue_entity can be called
> on current task for other reasons as well (like when it is abt to
> sleep or change its nice value).
yeah, it's not worth it. I'd go for keeping the code unified even if
adds a few instructions runtime overhead, as i'd expect most distros to
enable fair-group-scheduling by default in the future. (once all the
containers infrastructure and tools has trickled down to them)
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