[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1297788210.15382.51.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:43:30 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: torbenh <torbenh@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>, bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: autogroup: sched_setscheduler() fails
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 16:46 +0100, torbenh wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:16:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 04:54 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > sched, autogroup: fix CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED sched_setscheduler() failure.
> > >
> > > If CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED is set, __sched_setscheduler() fails due to autogroup
> > > not allocating rt_runtime. Free unused/unusable rt_se and rt_rq, redirect RT
> > > tasks to the root task group, and tell __sched_setscheduler() that it's ok.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> > > Reported-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Thanks, applied!
>
> while this behaviour is certeinly necessary, i think this is a hack.
> it fixes the problem for autogroups.
> But its not fixed for things which want to control the cfs shares via
> normal cgroups.
You mean automated control ala systemd? For a static set of groups, it
works fine. I was wondering how systemd would deal with it.
> why isnt rt_runtime_us residing in a separate (new) subsystem ?
The allocation problem was shamelessly punted back to the user, where I
think it truly belongs.
-Mike
--
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