From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751529Ab1ADSMH (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:12:07 -0500 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:52080 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022Ab1ADSME (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:12:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Refactoring sched_entity and sched_rt_entity. From: Dario Faggioli To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel , Steven Rostedt , Gregory Haskins , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Mike Galbraith , Dhaval Giani , Fabio Checconi , Darren Hart , oleg , paulmck , pjt@google.com, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.co, lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1294157944.2016.166.camel@laptop> References: <1294156524.6169.147.camel@Palantir> <1294157944.2016.166.camel@laptop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-JJN1jRdSWc3EFqaSXoxC" Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:11:40 +0100 Message-ID: <1294164700.6169.197.camel@Palantir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-JJN1jRdSWc3EFqaSXoxC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 17:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:=20 > > OTOH, groups are always considered both fair _and_ RT entities, for > > example they're always queued in _both_ an RT run_list and a fair > > rb-tree. So I can't put them in an union, because I need both at the > > same time! >=20 > Just like its now, keep a sched_entity per class. >=20 > struct task_group { >=20 > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED > struct sched_entity **cfs_se; > ... > #endif >=20 > #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED > struct sched_entity **rt_se; > ... > #endif >=20 > } >=20 Well, sure this can be done. But what about the common fields? I guess you're suggesting to use something like `struct sched_entity_common' and putting them there, aren't you? If yes, I'm fine with that, although it'll add one more level of indirection for those fields (e.g., p->se.comm.on_rq). Are we cool with this? > I see once clash with my current ttwu patch set though, see: >=20 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/4/228 >=20 > But that should be easy to resolve. > It's based on current tip, and yes, I plan to keep it updated and solve the clashes as soon as I run into them. :-) Thanks and Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli -- dario.faggioli@jabber.org --=-JJN1jRdSWc3EFqaSXoxC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk0jYtwACgkQk4XaBE3IOsTBmgCfUhQ5kMtOI4XRVzX1fHmZO7zm KIcAn3at/U7WnABnSl6KMndxECEqhBNb =6Fx5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-JJN1jRdSWc3EFqaSXoxC--