[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294169197.2016.188.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:26:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: 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, lucas.de.marchi@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Refactoring sched_entity and sched_rt_entity.
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 19:11 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > struct task_group {
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > struct sched_entity **cfs_se;
> > ...
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
> > struct sched_entity **rt_se;
> > ...
> > #endif
> >
> > }
> >
> Well, sure this can be done. But what about the common fields? I guess
> you're suggesting to use something like `struct sched_entity_common' and
> putting them there, aren't you?
>
> If yes, I'm fine with that, although it'll add one more level of
> indirection for those fields (e.g., p->se.comm.on_rq). Are we cool with
> this?
I'm pretty sure we're mis-understanding each other here, I meant to keep
two complete sched_entity structures (both containing the common/fair/rt
parts). That way, one can use the fair and the other the rt part.
--
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