[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wCmetef0tjfvdHtZMS9x4eswhL_xAM5Ybdwq+@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:37:16 -0200
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>
To: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>, oleg <oleg@...hat.com>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, pjt@...gle.com,
bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.co
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Refactoring sched_entity and sched_rt_entity.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 13:55, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it> wrote:
> They're not inside an union yet, because I'm not sure on how to treat
> the task group case. In fact, tasks can only have _just_one_ scheduling
> policy at a time, and thus, for example, they need the run_list _or_ the
> rb_node for queueing (if the task is RT or fair, respectively), which is
> perfect with respect to using an union.
> OTOH, groups are always considered both fair _and_ RT entities, for
> example they're always queued in _both_ an RT run_list and a fair
> rb-tree. So I can't put them in an union, because I need both at the
> same time!
> Suggestions on how to deal with that will be appreciated.
Don't forget the PI case too. You will need to change
rt_mutex_setprio() to keep a copy of sched_cfs_entity in struct
rt_mutex_waiter.
Peter, isn't sched_fair_entity a better name?
Lucas De Marchi
--
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