[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DC8E69C.8020301@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:17:48 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/15] sched: hierarchical task accounting for SCHED_OTHER
Some typos in the description.
(2011/05/03 18:28), Paul Turner wrote:
> Introduce hierarchal task accounting for the group scheduling case in CFS, as
hierarchical
> well as promoting the responsibility for maintaining rq->nr_running to the
> scheduling classes.
>
> The primary motivation for this is that with scheduling classes supporting
> bandwidht throttling it is possible for entities participating in trottled
bandwidth throttled
> sub-trees to not have root visible changes in rq->nr_running across activate
> and de-activate operations. This in turn leads to incorrect idle and
> weight-per-task load balance decisions.
>
> This also allows us to make a small fixlet to the fastpath in pick_next_task()
> under group scheduling.
>
> Note: this issue also exists with the existing sched_rt throttling mechanism.
> This patch does not address that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
>
> ---
The patch is good.
Reviewed-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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