Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/2] sched: change the fairness model of the CFSgroup scheduler

[Dhaval Giani]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/