From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765478AbXHXJvS (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:51:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755630AbXHXJvK (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:51:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50358 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758861AbXHXJvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:51:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:51:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mitchell Erblich Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com Subject: Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks. Message-ID: <20070824095102.GA3615@elte.hu> References: <000501c7df67$a644c9e0$6501a8c0@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000501c7df67$a644c9e0$6501a8c0@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Mitchell Erblich 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