* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (3) rework enqueue/dequeue_entity() to get rid of
> > sched_class::set_curr_task()
>
> Dmitry/Ingo,
> I am sorry for not having reviewed this change properly, but I
> think we need to revert this.
ah, i was wondering about that already. We can certainly skip that
optimization.
> In theory its possible to solve these problems w/o reintroducing
> set_curr_task(). I tried doing so, but found it clutters
> dequeue_entity and enqueue_entity a lot and makes it less readable. It
> will duplicate what put_prev_entity() and set_next_entity() are
> supposed to do. Moreoever it is slightly inefficient to do all these
> in dequeue_entity() if we consider that dequeue_entity can be called
> on current task for other reasons as well (like when it is abt to
> sleep or change its nice value).
yeah, it's not worth it. I'd go for keeping the code unified even if
adds a few instructions runtime overhead, as i'd expect most distros to
enable fair-group-scheduling by default in the future. (once all the
containers infrastructure and tools has trickled down to them)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
