Re: RT Load balance changes in sched-devel

[Steven Rostedt]

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > btw., both cases would be addressed by placing load-balance points
> > into sched_class_rt->{enqueue,dequeue}_task_rt()... push_rt_tasks()
> > and pull_rt_tasks() respectively. As a side effect (I think,
> > technically, it would be possible), 3 out of 4 *_balance_rt() calls
> > (the exception: schedule_tail_balance_rt()) in schedule() would become
> > unnecessary.
> >
> > _BUT_
> >
> > the enqueue/dequeue() interface would become less straightforward,
> > logically-wise.
> > Something like:

Also push and pull_rt use activate,deactivate as well. So this would 
make that code a bit more complex.

> > rq = activate_task(rq, ...) ; /* may unlock rq and lock/return another one 
> > */
> >
> > would complicate the existing use cases.
>
> I think I would prefer to just fix the setscheduler/setprio cases for the class transition than change the behavior of these enqueue/dequeue calls.  But I will keep an open mind as I look into this issue.

I agree with Gregory on this. I prefer to fix the two you found. I 
thought about them before, but somehow they were missed :-/

Anyway, I'll be working on adding some more patches on Monday. There may 
be other ways to clean this up.

> Thanks for the review!

Yeah, thanks from me too!

-- Steve

--
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/