Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] core changes in CFS

[Balbir Singh]

Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> +#define entity_is_task(se)	1

Could you add some comments as to what this means? Should be it boolean instead
(true)


>  /*
> - * Enqueue a task into the rb-tree:
> + * Enqueue a entity into the rb-tree:

Enqueue an entity

> -static void limit_wait_runtime(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +static void limit_wait_runtime(struct lrq *lrq, struct sched_entity *p)

p is a general convention for tasks in the code, could we use something
different -- may be "e"?

> 
>  static s64 div64_s(s64 divident, unsigned long divisor)
> @@ -183,49 +219,51 @@
>   * Update the current task's runtime statistics. Skip current tasks that
>   * are not in our scheduling class.
>   */
> -static inline void update_curr(struct rq *rq, u64 now)
> +static inline void update_curr(struct lrq *lrq, u64 now)
>  {
> -	unsigned long load = rq->lrq.raw_weighted_load;
> +	unsigned long load = lrq->raw_weighted_load;
>  	u64 delta_exec, delta_fair, delta_mine;
> -	struct task_struct *curr = rq->curr;
> +	struct sched_entity *curr = lrq_curr(lrq);

How about curr_entity?

> +	struct rq *rq = lrq_rq(lrq);
> +	struct task_struct *curtask = rq->curr;
> 
> -	if (curr->sched_class != &fair_sched_class || curr == rq->idle || !load)
> +	if (!curr || curtask == rq->idle || !load)

Can !curr ever be true? shoudn't we look into the sched_class of the task
that the entity belongs to?


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
-
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/