[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1227644222.4259.2054.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:17:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't allow priority switch to realtime when
the task doesn't belong to init_task_group and when CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
isn't set
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:51 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:24 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >
> >>Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >>>Furthermore your statement shows another misconception, a group of
> >>>ungrouped tasks doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >>Arguably there is such a group, which is "the set of all RT tasks".
> >
> >
> > Sure, I understand that, and in fact that's how its implemented, no
> > group is still one group (which is how you can bootstrap math from
> > group/set theory).
> >
> > But its not a manageable group in the cgroup sense, its just the
> > collection of RT tasks.
>
> True, but it would be valuable to have statistics for how much cpu time
> the RT tasks are consuming.
True, I have patches for that though, and this is unrelated to cgroups.
The more interesting thing is using that time to scale the sched_other
balancing.
--
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