[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091205130446.GB6204@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:34:46 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 2/7] sched: Bandwidth initialization for fair
task groups
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:09:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 20:04 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * TODO: Check if this kind of timer setup is sufficient for cfs or
> > + * should we do what rt is doing.
> > + */
> > +static void start_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg)
>
> is there a reason not to do as rt does?
Not really, rt seems to have an elaborate mechanism to check for overruns etc.
I was in two minds if I need to have the same for cfs, may be I will follow
rt here also.
Regards,
Bharata.
--
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