From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754671AbXLJA6g (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:58:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751936AbXLJA6P (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:58:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:49200 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752079AbXLJA6O (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: <475C8EE9.2040608@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:57:13 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20071019) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Haskins CC: Dmitry Adamushko , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Balbir Singh , vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, LKML Kernel Subject: Re: RT Load balance changes in sched-devel References: <20071130145939.GN5681@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071203182223.GA4133@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47556B23.2060909@redhat.com> <20071204153542.GC3388@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071205134036.GA21933@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4756B8E9.3080709@redhat.com> <20071205164800.GA24767@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4756D709.1020901@redhat.com> <475BEE6B.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> In-Reply-To: <475BEE6B.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Gregory Haskins wrote: >> btw., both cases would be addressed by placing load-balance points >> into sched_class_rt->{enqueue,dequeue}_task_rt()... push_rt_tasks() >> and pull_rt_tasks() respectively. As a side effect (I think, >> technically, it would be possible), 3 out of 4 *_balance_rt() calls >> (the exception: schedule_tail_balance_rt()) in schedule() would become >> unnecessary. >> >> _BUT_ >> >> the enqueue/dequeue() interface would become less straightforward, >> logically-wise. >> Something like: Also push and pull_rt use activate,deactivate as well. So this would make that code a bit more complex. >> >> rq = activate_task(rq, ...) ; /* may unlock rq and lock/return another one >> */ >> >> would complicate the existing use cases. >> > > I think I would prefer to just fix the setscheduler/setprio cases for the class transition than change the behavior of these enqueue/dequeue calls. But I will keep an open mind as I look into this issue. I agree with Gregory on this. I prefer to fix the two you found. I thought about them before, but somehow they were missed :-/ Anyway, I'll be working on adding some more patches on Monday. There may be other ways to clean this up. > > Thanks for the review! Yeah, thanks from me too! -- Steve