Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Introduce struct sched_entity and struct lrq

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:45:59AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > +/* CFS-related fields in a runqueue */
> > +struct lrq {
> > +	unsigned long raw_weighted_load;
> > +	#define CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX 5
> > +	unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX];
> > +	unsigned long nr_load_updates;
> > +
> > +	u64 fair_clock, delta_fair_clock;
> > +	u64 exec_clock, delta_exec_clock;
> > +	s64 wait_runtime;
> > +	unsigned long wait_runtime_overruns, wait_runtime_underruns;
> > +
> > +	struct rb_root tasks_timeline;
> > +	struct rb_node *rb_leftmost;
> > +	struct rb_node *rb_load_balance_curr;
> > +};
> > +
> 
> Shouldn't the rq->lock move into lrq?

Right now, the per-cpu rq lock protects all (local) runqueues attached with the 
cpu. At some point, for scalability reasons, we may want to split that to
be per-cpu per-local runqueue (as you point out). I will put that in my todo
list of things to consider. Thanks for the review!

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/