On 10/14/2013 04:06 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Juri Lelli <juri.le...@gmail.com> 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 :(. Thanks, - Juri -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
