From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
containers@lists.osdl.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
menage@google.com, efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Revert recent removal of set_curr_task()
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:35:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070924163525.GA12745@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070924163653.GB10291@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > (3) rework enqueue/dequeue_entity() to get rid of
> > sched_class::set_curr_task()
>
> Dmitry/Ingo,
> I am sorry for not having reviewed this change properly, but I
> think we need to revert this.
ah, i was wondering about that already. We can certainly skip that
optimization.
> In theory its possible to solve these problems w/o reintroducing
> set_curr_task(). I tried doing so, but found it clutters
> dequeue_entity and enqueue_entity a lot and makes it less readable. It
> will duplicate what put_prev_entity() and set_next_entity() are
> supposed to do. Moreoever it is slightly inefficient to do all these
> in dequeue_entity() if we consider that dequeue_entity can be called
> on current task for other reasons as well (like when it is abt to
> sleep or change its nice value).
yeah, it's not worth it. I'd go for keeping the code unified even if
adds a few instructions runtime overhead, as i'd expect most distros to
enable fair-group-scheduling by default in the future. (once all the
containers infrastructure and tools has trickled down to them)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-24 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-24 16:33 [PATCH 0/5] Fair group scheduler - various fixes Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:36 ` [PATCH 1/5] Revert recent removal of set_curr_task() Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:35 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-09-24 16:38 ` [PATCH 2/5] Fix minor bug in yield + add more debug o/p Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:39 ` [PATCH 3/5] Cleanup code under CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-09-24 17:13 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:40 ` [PATCH 4/5] Add fair-user scheduler Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:56 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-09-24 17:16 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 18:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-09-24 23:39 ` roel
2007-09-25 2:09 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:41 ` [PATCH 5/5] Add fair "control groups" scheduler Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-09-24 16:58 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-09-24 17:18 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070924163525.GA12745@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox