Re: [PATCH 12/14] sched: make dl_bw a sub-quota of rt_bw

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:00:20PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 04:06 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> >> +#else
> >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> >> +#endif
> > 
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> >> +#else
> >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> >> +#endif
> > 
> > Btw., this kind of SMP/UP assymetry pattern really sucks. Why not make UP 
> > use the SMP data structure, even if it's degenerate?
> > 
> 
> Yes, I don't like it either, but that comes from the fact that it seemed to me
> that, semantically, bandwidth for -deadline tasks has to be associated to the
> single runqueue in UP and to the root_domain for SMP. In UP root_domain is
> compiled out, so I'm not sure to understand what you suggest. I could probably
> let dl_bw live on runqueues with the assumption that all the runqueues from the
> same root_domain have the same dl_bw, that represents the dl_bw of the
> root_domain. But I don't like this replication either :(.

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP

static inline struct dl_bw *dl_bw_of(int i)
{
	return &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
}

#else

static inline struct dl_bw *dl_bw_of(int i)
{
	return &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
}

#endif

?
--
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/