Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758096AbYCDJuV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:50:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753975AbYCDJuD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:50:03 -0500 Received: from E23SMTP04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.173]:55985 "EHLO e23smtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753263AbYCDJuB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:50:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:19:44 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Ingo Molnar , Sudhir Kumar , Balbir Singh , Aneesh Kumar KV , lkml , vgoyal@redhat.com, serue@us.ibm.com, menage@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/2] sched: change the fairness model of the CFS group scheduler Message-ID: <20080304094944.GB3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani References: <20080225141504.GA27746@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080225141604.GA29213@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1204227768.6243.42.camel@lappy> <20080229090400.GD15328@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1204281475.6243.73.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204281475.6243.73.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1827 Lines: 48 On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:37:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 14:34 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > > > > +#elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED > > > > + /* > > > > + * In case of task-groups formed thr' the user id of tasks, > > > > + * init_task_group represents tasks belonging to root user. > > > > + * Hence it forms a sibling of all subsequent groups formed. > > > > + * In this case, init_task_group gets only a fraction of overall > > > > + * system cpu resource, based on the weight assigned to root > > > > + * user's cpu share (INIT_TASK_GROUP_LOAD). This is accomplished > > > > + * by letting tasks of init_task_group sit in a separate cfs_rq > > > > + * (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, > > > > &per_cpu(init_cfs_rq, i), > > > > &per_cpu(init_sched_entity, i), i, 1); > > > > > > But I fail to parse this lengthy comment. What does it do: > > > > > > init_group > > > / | \ > > > uid-0 uid-1000 uid-n > > > > > > or does it blend uid-0 into the init_group? > > > > > > > It blends uid-0 (root) into init_group. > > Any particular reason why? It seems to me uid-0 should be treated like > any other uid. > Ah, I misunderstood your question. We have not changed anything for UID scheduling as no task can (should) exist at the root level (init_group). Your initial figure is right, sorry for the confusion. Thanks, -- regards, Dhaval -- 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/