Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755294AbXKSOud (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:50:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753522AbXKSOuZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:50:25 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:49219 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752277AbXKSOuZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:50:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:33:12 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Ingo Molnar Cc: dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Improve fairness of cpu allocation for task groups Message-ID: <20071119150312.GA2365@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20071119122713.GA28777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119123051.GC28777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119131201.GB31491@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071119131201.GB31491@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2178 Lines: 51 On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:12:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > include/linux/sched.h | 4 > > kernel/sched.c | 292 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 95 ++++++++++------ > > kernel/sched_rt.c | 2 > > kernel/sysctl.c | 16 ++ > > 5 files changed, 348 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > > i'm leaning towards making this v2.6.25 material, as it affects the > non-group-scheduling bits too and is rather large. When i tested it, > group scheduling worked pretty well - at least for CPU bound tasks - and > on SMP too. Could we live with what we have for now and defer this patch > to v2.6.25? Hi Ingo, I would prefer this to go in 2.6.24 if possible. 2.6.24 would be the first kernel to support a group scheduler in its entirety (user interface + related support in scheduler) and also that works reasonably well :) It would also give me early test feedback. > If not, could you split up this patch in a way to defer all > the FAIR_GROUP_SCHED relevant changes to a separate patch which will not > affect the !FAIR_GROUP_SCHED case at all? That will make the case much > clearer. >From my inspection, here are the changes introduced by this patch for !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED case: - inc/dec_load() takes a load input instead of task pointer input as their 2nd arg - inc/dec_nr_running don't call inc/dec_load. Instead, - enqueue/dequeue_task class callbacks call inc/dec_load - [Unintended/will-fix change] min/max tunables added in /proc/sys/kernel All of above changes (except last, which I will fix) should have zero functional+runtime effect for !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED case. So I don't see how I can split Patch 2/2 further. Or do you prefer I introduce #ifdef's such that even these minor changes to inc/dec_load are avoided for !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED case? That would make the code slightly ugly I suspect. -- 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/