Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks.

Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks.

[Mitchell Erblich]

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> >
> > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > missing is the RT for .task_new.
> 
> No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
> 
>         -Mike


Mike, et al,

    one time:  I was told that this group likes bottom posts.

    The logic of class independent code calling class
    scheduling dependent code, assumes that all functions
   are in ALL the class dependent sections.

    Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume 
    that the function should still exist as a null type function. However,
    in reality,  alot of RT class specific init is done. Just currently 
    none of it is done in this non-existant function.

Mitchell Erblich

Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks.

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:10 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:

> However,
>     in reality,  alot of RT class specific init is done. Just currently 
>     none of it is done in this non-existant function.

Patch?

Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> > >
> > > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > > missing is the RT for .task_new.
> > 
> > No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
> > 
> >         -Mike
> 
> 
> Mike, et al,
> 
>     one time:  I was told that this group likes bottom posts.

( Mike did not top-post, so why this comment? )

>     The logic of class independent code calling class scheduling 
>    dependent code, assumes that all functions are in ALL the class 
>    dependent sections.
> 
>     Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume 
>     that the function should still exist as a null type function. 
>     However, in reality, alot of RT class specific init is done. Just 
>     currently none of it is done in this non-existant function.

your original claim and these additional claims are both incorrect. What 
Mike said is true: there is nothing "missing", RT class tasks do not 
need any extra setup over what they already receive from the generic 
function. A NULL pointer for sched_class->task_new means: "do default 
setup, no class-specific setup needed". If you disagree with what we say 
then please send a fix-patch or quote the specific code that is missing 
something in your opinion.

	Ingo