Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support started by Dhaval.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
---
kernel/sched.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
@@ -7302,10 +7302,12 @@ static void init_tg_cfs_entry(struct tas
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
-static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct rq *rq, struct task_group *tg,
- struct rt_rq *rt_rq, struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se,
- int cpu, int add)
+static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct task_group *tg, struct rt_rq *rt_rq,
+ struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, int cpu, int add,
+ struct sched_rt_entity *parent)
{
+ struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+
tg->rt_rq[cpu] = rt_rq;
init_rt_rq(rt_rq, rq);
rt_rq->tg = tg;
@@ -7318,6 +7320,11 @@ static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct rq *
if (!rt_se)
return;
+ if (!parent)
+ rt_se->rt_rq = &rq->rt;
+ else
+ rt_se->rt_rq = parent->my_q;
+
rt_se->rt_rq = &rq->rt;
rt_se->my_q = rt_rq;
rt_se->parent = NULL;
@@ -7380,8 +7387,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
* We achieve this by letting init_task_group's tasks sit
* directly in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] = NULL).
*/
- init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->cfs,
- NULL, i, 1, NULL);
+ init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->cfs, NULL, i, 1, NULL);
#elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED
/*
* In case of task-groups formed thr' the user id of tasks,
@@ -7394,7 +7400,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
* (init_cfs_rq) and having one entity represent this group of
* tasks in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] != NULL).
*/
- init_tg_cfs_entry(rq, &init_task_group,
+ init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group,
&per_cpu(init_cfs_rq, i),
&per_cpu(init_sched_entity, i), i, 1, NULL);
@@ -7405,11 +7411,11 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->leaf_rt_rq_list);
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
- init_tg_rt_entry(rq, &init_task_group, &rq->rt, NULL, i, 1);
+ init_tg_rt_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->rt, NULL, i, 1, NULL);
#elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED
- init_tg_rt_entry(rq, &init_task_group,
+ init_tg_rt_entry(&init_task_group,
&per_cpu(init_rt_rq, i),
- &per_cpu(init_sched_rt_entity, i), i, 1);
+ &per_cpu(init_sched_rt_entity, i), i, 1, NULL);
#endif
#endif
@@ -7613,11 +7619,11 @@ static void free_fair_sched_group(struct
kfree(tg->se);
}
-static int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg,
- struct task_group *parent)
+static
+int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
{
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
- struct sched_entity *se;
+ struct sched_entity *se, *parent_se;
struct rq *rq;
int i;
@@ -7643,10 +7649,8 @@ static int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct
if (!se)
goto err;
- if (!parent)
- init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, NULL);
- else
- init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, parent->se[i]);
+ parent_se = parent ? parent->se[i] : NULL;
+ init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, parent_se);
}
return 1;
@@ -7670,7 +7674,8 @@ static inline void free_fair_sched_group
{
}
-static inline int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
+static inline
+int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
{
return 1;
}
@@ -7702,10 +7707,11 @@ static void free_rt_sched_group(struct t
kfree(tg->rt_se);
}
-static int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
+static
+int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
{
struct rt_rq *rt_rq;
- struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se;
+ struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, *parent_se;
struct rq *rq;
int i;
@@ -7732,7 +7738,8 @@ static int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct t
if (!rt_se)
goto err;
- init_tg_rt_entry(rq, tg, rt_rq, rt_se, i, 0);
+ parent_se = parent ? parent->rt_se[i] : NULL;
+ init_tg_rt_entry(tg, rt_rq, rt_se, i, 0, parent_se);
}
return 1;
@@ -7756,7 +7763,8 @@ static inline void free_rt_sched_group(s
{
}
-static inline int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
+static inline
+int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
{
return 1;
}
@@ -7792,7 +7800,7 @@ struct task_group *sched_create_group(st
if (!alloc_fair_sched_group(tg, parent))
goto err;
- if (!alloc_rt_sched_group(tg))
+ if (!alloc_rt_sched_group(tg, parent))
goto err;
spin_lock_irqsave(&task_group_lock, flags);
--
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support started by Dhaval.
>
Thanks for the effort. Just a very minor comment. I will try these out
and give more feedback.
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-2.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6-2/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -7302,10 +7302,12 @@ static void init_tg_cfs_entry(struct tas
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
> -static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct rq *rq, struct task_group *tg,
> - struct rt_rq *rt_rq, struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se,
> - int cpu, int add)
> +static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct task_group *tg, struct rt_rq *rt_rq,
> + struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, int cpu, int add,
> + struct sched_rt_entity *parent)
> {
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> tg->rt_rq[cpu] = rt_rq;
> init_rt_rq(rt_rq, rq);
> rt_rq->tg = tg;
> @@ -7318,6 +7320,11 @@ static void init_tg_rt_entry(struct rq *
> if (!rt_se)
> return;
>
> + if (!parent)
> + rt_se->rt_rq = &rq->rt;
> + else
> + rt_se->rt_rq = parent->my_q;
> +
> rt_se->rt_rq = &rq->rt;
> rt_se->my_q = rt_rq;
> rt_se->parent = NULL;
> @@ -7380,8 +7387,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> * We achieve this by letting init_task_group's tasks sit
> * directly in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] = NULL).
> */
> - init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->cfs,
> - NULL, i, 1, NULL);
> + init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->cfs, NULL, i, 1, NULL);
Shouldn't this go in the previous patch?
> #elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED
> /*
> * In case of task-groups formed thr' the user id of tasks,
> @@ -7394,7 +7400,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> * (init_cfs_rq) and having one entity represent this group of
> * tasks in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] != NULL).
> */
> - init_tg_cfs_entry(rq, &init_task_group,
> + init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group,
> &per_cpu(init_cfs_rq, i),
> &per_cpu(init_sched_entity, i), i, 1, NULL);
>
Shouldn't this go in the previous patch? (my mistake, I missed this one in the
patch I sent out).
> @@ -7405,11 +7411,11 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->leaf_rt_rq_list);
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> - init_tg_rt_entry(rq, &init_task_group, &rq->rt, NULL, i, 1);
> + init_tg_rt_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->rt, NULL, i, 1, NULL);
> #elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED
> - init_tg_rt_entry(rq, &init_task_group,
> + init_tg_rt_entry(&init_task_group,
> &per_cpu(init_rt_rq, i),
> - &per_cpu(init_sched_rt_entity, i), i, 1);
> + &per_cpu(init_sched_rt_entity, i), i, 1, NULL);
> #endif
> #endif
>
> @@ -7613,11 +7619,11 @@ static void free_fair_sched_group(struct
> kfree(tg->se);
> }
>
> -static int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg,
> - struct task_group *parent)
> +static
> +int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
> {
> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> - struct sched_entity *se;
> + struct sched_entity *se, *parent_se;
> struct rq *rq;
> int i;
>
> @@ -7643,10 +7649,8 @@ static int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct
> if (!se)
> goto err;
>
> - if (!parent)
> - init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, NULL);
> - else
> - init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, parent->se[i]);
> + parent_se = parent ? parent->se[i] : NULL;
> + init_tg_cfs_entry(tg, cfs_rq, se, i, 0, parent_se);
> }
>
> return 1;
> @@ -7670,7 +7674,8 @@ static inline void free_fair_sched_group
> {
> }
>
> -static inline int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
> +static inline
> +int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
> {
> return 1;
> }
> @@ -7702,10 +7707,11 @@ static void free_rt_sched_group(struct t
> kfree(tg->rt_se);
> }
>
> -static int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
> +static
> +int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
> {
> struct rt_rq *rt_rq;
> - struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se;
> + struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, *parent_se;
> struct rq *rq;
> int i;
>
> @@ -7732,7 +7738,8 @@ static int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct t
> if (!rt_se)
> goto err;
>
> - init_tg_rt_entry(rq, tg, rt_rq, rt_se, i, 0);
> + parent_se = parent ? parent->rt_se[i] : NULL;
> + init_tg_rt_entry(tg, rt_rq, rt_se, i, 0, parent_se);
> }
>
> return 1;
> @@ -7756,7 +7763,8 @@ static inline void free_rt_sched_group(s
> {
> }
>
> -static inline int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
> +static inline
> +int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
> {
> return 1;
> }
> @@ -7792,7 +7800,7 @@ struct task_group *sched_create_group(st
> if (!alloc_fair_sched_group(tg, parent))
> goto err;
>
> - if (!alloc_rt_sched_group(tg))
> + if (!alloc_rt_sched_group(tg, parent))
> goto err;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&task_group_lock, flags);
>
> --
--
regards,
Dhaval
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:59 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dhaval Giani
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra
> wrote:
> > Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support
> started by Dhaval.
> >
>
>
> Thanks for the effort. Just a very minor comment. I will try
> these out
> and give more feedback.
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
>
>
> Shouldn't this have Dhaval's signed-off-by as well? Dhaval do you want
> to sign-off on these patches?
He can Ack it, but the 3rd patch was not authored by him.
That said, we should probably clean up the first 3 patches and fold
stuff.
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:59 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dhaval Giani
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra
>> wrote:
>> > Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support
>> started by Dhaval.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the effort. Just a very minor comment. I will try
>> these out
>> and give more feedback.
>>
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't this have Dhaval's signed-off-by as well? Dhaval do you want
>> to sign-off on these patches?
>
> He can Ack it, but the 3rd patch was not authored by him.
>
So, the first two patches should have his sign-off then? I don't mean to
nit-pick, but want to follow DCO correctly.
> That said, we should probably clean up the first 3 patches and fold
> stuff.
>
OK. I'll try and review the patchset tonight.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 07:04:32PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:59 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dhaval Giani
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra
> >> wrote:
> >> > Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support
> >> started by Dhaval.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the effort. Just a very minor comment. I will try
> >> these out
> >> and give more feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>
> >> Shouldn't this have Dhaval's signed-off-by as well? Dhaval do you want
> >> to sign-off on these patches?
> >
> > He can Ack it, but the 3rd patch was not authored by him.
> >
>
> So, the first two patches should have his sign-off then? I don't mean to
> nit-pick, but want to follow DCO correctly.
>
They do, also have my From, just quilt mail ate it up. I hope peter can
find a workaround so that the next post of the patchset won't lose it
:).
--
regards,
Dhaval
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:59 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Dhaval Giani
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra
>> wrote:
>> > Update the -rt bits to support the full hierarchy support
>> started by Dhaval.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the effort. Just a very minor comment. I will try
>> these out
>> and give more feedback.
>>
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't this have Dhaval's signed-off-by as well? Dhaval do you want
>> to sign-off on these patches?
>
> He can Ack it, but the 3rd patch was not authored by him.
>
My bad, I saw his sign-off on the first two patches. I got confused due to the
order in which my mailer received the patches.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL