lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Rationalize sys_sched_rr_get_interval()
On 13-10-2007 03:29, Peter Williams wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On 12-10-2007 00:23, Peter Williams wrote:
>> ...
>>> The reason I was going that route was for modularity (which helps
>>> when adding plugsched patches). I'll submit a revised patch for
>>> consideration.
>> ...
>>
>> IMHO, it looks like modularity could suck here:
>>
>>> +static unsigned int default_timeslice_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>>> +{
>>> + return NS_TO_JIFFIES(sysctl_sched_min_granularity);
>>> +}
>>
>> If it's needed for outside and sched_fair will use something else
>> (to avoid double conversion) this could be misleading. Shouldn't
>> this be kind of private and return something usable for the class
>> mainly?
>
> This is supplying data for a system call not something for internal use
> by the class. As far as the sched_fair class is concerned this is just
> a (necessary - because it's need by a system call) diversion.

So, now all is clear: this is the misleading case!

>
>> Why anything else than sched_fair should care about this?
>
> sched_fair doesn't care so if nothing else does why do we even have
> sys_sched_rr_get_interval()? Is this whole function an anachronism that
> can be expunged? I'm assuming that the reason it exists is that there
> are user space programs that use this system call. Am I correct in this
> assumption? Personally, I can't think of anything it would be useful
> for other than satisfying curiosity.

Since this is for some special aim (not default for most classes, at
least not for sched_fair) I'd suggest to change names:
default_timeslice_fair() and .default_timeslice to something like eg.:
rr_timeslice_fair() and .rr_timeslice or rr_interval_fair() and
.rr_interval (maybe with this "default" before_"rr_" if necessary).

On the other hand man (2) sched_rr_get_interval mentions that:
"The identified process should be running under the SCHED_RR
scheduling policy".

Also this place seems to say about something simpler:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Basic-Scheduling-Functions.html

So, I still doubt sched_fair's "notion" of timeslices should be
necessary here.

Sorry for too harsh words.

Thanks,
Jarek P.
-
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: 2007-10-15 13:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans