Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:05:51 +0100 | From | Dhaval Giani <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |