Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/2] sched: change the fairness model of the CFS group scheduler | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:37:55 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 14:34 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > +#elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED > > > + /* > > > + * In case of task-groups formed thr' the user id of tasks, > > > + * init_task_group represents tasks belonging to root user. > > > + * Hence it forms a sibling of all subsequent groups formed. > > > + * In this case, init_task_group gets only a fraction of overall > > > + * system cpu resource, based on the weight assigned to root > > > + * user's cpu share (INIT_TASK_GROUP_LOAD). This is accomplished > > > + * by letting tasks of init_task_group sit in a separate cfs_rq > > > + * (init_cfs_rq) and having one entity represent this group of > > > + * tasks in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] != NULL). > > > + */ > > > init_tg_cfs_entry(rq, &init_task_group, > > > &per_cpu(init_cfs_rq, i), > > > &per_cpu(init_sched_entity, i), i, 1); > > > > But I fail to parse this lengthy comment. What does it do: > > > > init_group > > / | \ > > uid-0 uid-1000 uid-n > > > > or does it blend uid-0 into the init_group? > > > > It blends uid-0 (root) into init_group.
Any particular reason why? It seems to me uid-0 should be treated like any other uid.
> > > @@ -1100,6 +1127,27 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct > > > if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)) > > > return; > > > > > > + /* > > > + * preemption test can be made between sibling entities who are in the > > > + * same cfs_rq i.e who have a common parent. Walk up the hierarchy of > > > + * both tasks untill we find their ancestors who are siblings of common > > > + * parent. > > > + */ > > > + > > > + /* First walk up until both entities are at same depth */ > > > + se_depth = depth_se(se); > > > + pse_depth = depth_se(pse); > > > + > > > + while (se_depth > pse_depth) { > > > + se_depth--; > > > + se = parent_entity(se); > > > + } > > > + > > > + while (pse_depth > se_depth) { > > > + pse_depth--; > > > + pse = parent_entity(pse); > > > + } > > > > Sad, but needed.. for now.. > > > > better ideas if any are welcome! Cannot think of anything right now :(
Single rq can do without :-) If only I could get that latency isolation going...
| |