lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface
    On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:32:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 23:17 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
    > > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:28 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:27 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
    > > > > +struct sched_param_ex {
    > > > > + int sched_priority;
    > > > > + struct timespec sched_runtime;
    > > > > + struct timespec sched_deadline;
    > > > > + struct timespec sched_period;
    > > > > + unsigned int sched_flags;
    > > > > +
    > > > > + struct timespec curr_runtime;
    > > > > + struct timespec used_runtime;
    > > > > + struct timespec curr_deadline;
    > > > > +};
    > > >
    > > > It would be better for alignment reasons to move the sched_flags field
    > > > next to the sched_priority field.
    > > >
    > > Makes sense, thanks. :-)
    > >
    > > > I would suggest we add at least one more field so we can implement the
    > > > stochastic model from UNC, sched_runtime_dev or sched_runtime_var or
    > > > somesuch.
    > > >
    > > Ok, no problem with that too.
    > >
    > > BTW, as Dhaval was suggesting, are (after those changes) fine with this
    > > new sched_param? Do we need some further mechanism to grant its
    > > extendability?
    > > Padding?
    > > Versioning?
    > > void *data field?
    > > Whatever?
    > >
    > > :-O
    > >
    > > I'd like very much to have some discussion here, if you think it is
    > > needed, in hope of avoiding future ABI issues as much as possible! :-P
    >
    > Right, so you mentioned doing s/_ex/2/ on all this stuff, which brings
    > it more in line with that other syscalls have done.
    >
    > The last three parameters look to be output only as I've not yet found
    > code that reads it, and __getparam_dl() doesn't even appear to set
    > used_runtime.
    >

    So, do you think its a good idea moving this information to schedstats?
    It seems more in line for monitoring, which schedstat seems a more
    appropriate destination.

    thanks,
    Dhaval


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-11 15:09    [W:0.050 / U:28.712 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site