Re: [PATCH -mm] Hook up group scheduler with control groups
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Sep 27 2007 - 19:44:18 EST
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:05:12 +0530
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:00:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:34:15 +0530 Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > +config RESOURCE_COUNTERS
> > > + bool "Resource counters"
> > > + help
> > > + This option enables controller independent resource accounting
> > Above line is tab + 2 spaces (i.e., correct).
> > > + infrastructure that works with cgroups.
> > Above line indent is 10 spaces (i.e., not correct).
> Ah! Thanks for the explanation. Corrected patch follows.
> Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by : Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> @@ -219,6 +225,9 @@ static inline struct task_grp *task_grp(
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED
> tg = p->user->tg;
> +#elif CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED
> + tg = container_of(task_subsys_state(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id),
> + struct task_grp, css);
> tg = &init_task_grp;
that's a bit funny-looking. Are CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED and
CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED mutually exclusive? Doesn't seem that way. if
they're both defined then CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED "wins".
Anyway, please confirm that this is correct?
I'll switch that to `#elif defined(CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED)'. We can get
gcc warnings with `#if CONFIG_FOO', and people should be using `#ifdef
CONFIG_FOO', so I assume the same applies to #elif.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/