Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:19:44 +0530 | From | Dhaval Giani <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/2] sched: change the fairness model of the CFS group scheduler |
| |
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:37:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. >
Ah, I misunderstood your question. We have not changed anything for UID scheduling as no task can (should) exist at the root level (init_group). Your initial figure is right, sorry for the confusion.
Thanks, -- regards, Dhaval
| |