[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335293623.28150.216.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:53:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, oleg@...hat.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com,
p.faure@...tech.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, michael@...rulasolutions.com,
fchecconi@...il.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it,
nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it, luca.abeni@...tn.it,
dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE push and pull logic
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 14:50 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Something like so: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/487 ?
>
> But it still does the same thing:
>
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
> {
> - struct task_struct *p = _pick_next_task_rt(rq);
> + struct task_struct *p;
> + struct rt_rq *rt_rq = &rq->rt;
> +
> + if (!rt_rq->rt_nr_running)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (rt_rq_throttled(rt_rq))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (prev)
> + prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> +
> + p = _pick_next_task_rt(rq);
>
> Now if we can do the _pick_next_task_rt() before put_prev_task(), and
> only do the put_prev_task() if p != prev, then that would be something.
Well that's up to the implementation of pick_next_task_rt() that
conversion is just a minimal make it work thing.
But the generic changes that patch carries should allow you to do what
you want, right?
--
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