Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It would be even better to simply have the rule:
>  - child gets almost no points at startup
>  - but when a parent does a "waitpid()" call and blocks, it will spread 
>    out its points to the childred (the "vfork()" blocking is another case 
>    that is really the same).
> 
> This is a very special kind of "priority inversion" logic: you give 
> higher priority to the things you wait for. Not because of holding any 
> locks, but simply because a blockign waitpid really is a damn big hint 
> that "ok, the child now works for the parent".

yeah. One problem i can see with the implementation of this though is 
that shells typically do nonspecific waits - for example bash does this 
on a simple 'ls' command:

  21310 clone(child_stack=0,  ...) = 21399
  ...
  21399 execve("/bin/ls", 
  ...
  21310 waitpid(-1, <unfinished ...>

the PID is -1 so we dont actually know which task we are waiting for. We 
could use the first entry from the p->children list, but that looks too 
specific of a hack to me. It should catch most of the 
synchronous-helper-task cases though.

	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/