Hi Peter, On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:10 PM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:40:14PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > From: Josh Don <josh...@google.com> > > > > A single unsigned long is insufficient as a cookie value for core > > scheduling. We will minimally have cookie values for a per-task and a > > per-group interface, which must be combined into an overall cookie. > > > > This patch adds the infrastructure necessary for setting task and group > > cookie. Namely, it reworks the core_cookie into a struct, and provides > > interfaces for setting task and group cookie, as well as other > > operations (i.e. compare()). Subsequent patches will use these hooks to > > provide an API for setting these cookies. > > > > *urgh*... so I specifically wanted the task interface first to avoid / > get-rid of all this madness. And then you keep it :-(
Sorry, I misunderstood the ask here :/ I had separated out the cgroup interface parts of the patch, leaving (mostly) the parts which introduced a compound cookie structure. I see now that you just wanted the plain task interface to start, with no notion of group cookie. > I've spend the past few hours rewriting patches #2 and #3, and adapting > #4. The thing was working before I added SHARE_FROM back and introduced > GET, but now I'm seeing a few FAILs from the selftest. > > I'm too tired to make sense of anything much, or even focus my eyes > consistently, so I'll have to prod at it some more next week, but I've > pushed out the lot to my queue.git: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=sched/core-sched Thanks, I'll take a look next week. > Also, we really need a better name than coretag.c. Yea, we don't really otherwise use the phrase "tagging". core_sched.c is probably too confusing given we have sched/core.c.