[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121217211843.GA13691@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:43 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] cfq-iosched: implement cfq_group->nr_active and
->level_weight
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:15:17PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 03:46:09PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:41:19PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > To prepare for blkcg hierarchy support, add cfqg->nr_active and
> > > ->level_weight. cfqg->nr_active counts the number of active cfqgs at
> > > the cfqg's level and ->level_weight is sum of weights of those cfqgs.
> > > The level covers itself (cfqg->leaf_weight) and immediate children.
> >
> > This notion of level is really confusing. If one says "at cfqg's level"
> > I immediately associate with cfqg's siblings and not with cfqg's children.
>
> We can explicitly say at children's level but I think it should be
> enough to explain it clearly in the comment where the field is
> defined.
>
> > I think confusion happens because we are overloading the definition of
> > cfqg. It is competing with its siblings at the same time it is competing
> > against its child groups (on behalf of its children tasks).
>
> While I agree that part is a bit tricky, I can't think of a much
> better way to describe it. Any better ideas?
Can we call it cfqg->children_weight insted of cfqg->level_weight.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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