Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV oftask_new_fairfor RT tasks.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> > >
> > > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > > missing is the RT for .task_new.
> > 
> > No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
> > 
> >         -Mike
> 
> 
> Mike, et al,
> 
>     one time:  I was told that this group likes bottom posts.

( Mike did not top-post, so why this comment? )

>     The logic of class independent code calling class scheduling 
>    dependent code, assumes that all functions are in ALL the class 
>    dependent sections.
> 
>     Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume 
>     that the function should still exist as a null type function. 
>     However, in reality, alot of RT class specific init is done. Just 
>     currently none of it is done in this non-existant function.

your original claim and these additional claims are both incorrect. What 
Mike said is true: there is nothing "missing", RT class tasks do not 
need any extra setup over what they already receive from the generic 
function. A NULL pointer for sched_class->task_new means: "do default 
setup, no class-specific setup needed". If you disagree with what we say 
then please send a fix-patch or quote the specific code that is missing 
something in your opinion.

	Ingo
-
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/