Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Refactoring sched_entity and sched_rt_entity.

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 13:55, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> They're not inside an union yet, because I'm not sure on how to treat
> the task group case. In fact, tasks can only have _just_one_ scheduling
> policy at a time, and thus, for example, they need the run_list _or_ the
> rb_node for queueing (if the task is RT or fair, respectively), which is
> perfect with respect to using an union.
> OTOH, groups are always considered both fair _and_ RT entities, for
> example they're always queued in _both_ an RT run_list and a fair
> rb-tree. So I can't put them in an union, because I need both at the
> same time!
> Suggestions on how to deal with that will be appreciated.

Don't forget the PI case too. You will need to change
rt_mutex_setprio() to keep a copy of sched_cfs_entity in struct
rt_mutex_waiter.

Peter, isn't sched_fair_entity a better name?



Lucas De Marchi
--
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/