![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Peter Williams wrote: > Balbir Singh wrote: >> On 5/26/06, Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>> Notes: >>> >>> 1. To minimize the overhead incurred when testing to skip caps >>> processing for >>> uncapped tasks a new flag PF_HAS_CAP has been added to flags. >>> >>> 2. The implementation involves the addition of two priority slots to the >>> run queue priority arrays and this means that MAX_PRIO no longer >>> represents the scheduling priority of the idle process and can't be >>> used to >>> test whether priority values are in the valid range. To alleviate this >>> problem a new function sched_idle_prio() has been provided. >> >> I am a little confused by this. Why link the bandwidth expired tasks a >> cpu (its caps) to a priority slot? Is this a hack to conitnue using >> the prio_array? why not move such tasks to the expired array? > > Because it won't work as after the array switch they may get to run > before tasks who aren't exceeding their cap (or don't have a cap). Another important reason for using these slots is that it allows waking tasks to preempt tasks that have exceeded their cap. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-28 02:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||