Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:22:45 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Introduce struct sched_entity and struct lrq |
| |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:45:59AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > +/* CFS-related fields in a runqueue */ > > +struct lrq { > > + unsigned long raw_weighted_load; > > + #define CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX 5 > > + unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX]; > > + unsigned long nr_load_updates; > > + > > + u64 fair_clock, delta_fair_clock; > > + u64 exec_clock, delta_exec_clock; > > + s64 wait_runtime; > > + unsigned long wait_runtime_overruns, wait_runtime_underruns; > > + > > + struct rb_root tasks_timeline; > > + struct rb_node *rb_leftmost; > > + struct rb_node *rb_load_balance_curr; > > +}; > > + > > Shouldn't the rq->lock move into lrq?
Right now, the per-cpu rq lock protects all (local) runqueues attached with the cpu. At some point, for scalability reasons, we may want to split that to be per-cpu per-local runqueue (as you point out). I will put that in my todo list of things to consider. Thanks for the review!
-- 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/
| |