Gregory Haskins wrote:
btw., both cases would be addressed by placing load-balance points
into sched_class_rt->{enqueue,dequeue}_task_rt()... push_rt_tasks()
and pull_rt_tasks() respectively. As a side effect (I think,
technically, it would be possible), 3 out of 4 *_balance_rt() calls
(the exception: schedule_tail_balance_rt()) in schedule() would become
unnecessary.
_BUT_
the enqueue/dequeue() interface would become less straightforward,
logically-wise.
Something like:
Also push and pull_rt use activate,deactivate as well. So this would
make that code a bit more complex.
rq = activate_task(rq, ...) ; /* may unlock rq and lock/return another one
*/
would complicate the existing use cases.
I think I would prefer to just fix the setscheduler/setprio cases for the class transition than change the behavior of these enqueue/dequeue calls. But I will keep an open mind as I look into this issue.
I agree with Gregory on this. I prefer to fix the two you found. I
thought about them before, but somehow they were missed :-/
Anyway, I'll be working on adding some more patches on Monday. There may
be other ways to clean this up.
Thanks for the review!
Yeah, thanks from me too!
-- Steve
--
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]
