Thanks Matt,
Matt Helsley wrote:
> Maeda-san,
>
> Here's a patch fixing a small typo in the patches currently posted on
> sourceforge. With this patch resource groups compiles without warnings
> against linux-2.6.17-rc6.
>
> Thanks for pointing us to the slides from Andrew's presentation. I am
> encouraged by his remarks on the core and CPU controllers.
>
> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley
> --
>
> Fix a small typo in kernel/res_group/cpu.c and documentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --
>
> kernel/res_group/cpu.c: In function `cpu_rc_get':
> kernel/res_group/cpu.c:46: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer
> type
> kernel/res_group/cpu.c:53: warning: passing arg 1 of `get_res_group_cpu' from
> incompatible pointer type
>
> Documentation/res_groups/cpurc-internals | 2 +-
> kernel/res_group/cpu.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6/kernel/res_group/cpu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6.orig/kernel/res_group/cpu.c
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6/kernel/res_group/cpu.c
> @@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ static struct cpu_res *get_res_group_cpu
> return get_shares_cpu(get_controller_shares(rgroup, &cpu_ctlr));
> }
>
> struct cpu_rc *cpu_rc_get(task_t *tsk)
> {
> - struct resoruce_group *rgroup = tsk->res_group;
> + struct resource_group *rgroup = tsk->res_group;
> struct cpu_res *res;
I don't know why the gcc in my machine doesn't warn me :-P
Will fix.
> /* controller is not registered; no resource group is given */
> if ((cpu_ctlr.ctlr_id == NO_RES_ID) || (rgroup == NULL))
> return NULL;
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6/Documentation/res_groups/cpurc-internals
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6.orig/Documentation/res_groups/cpurc-internals
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6/Documentation/res_groups/cpurc-internals
> @@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ CPU resource controller internals
> (2) hungry detection
> (3) timeslice scaling
>
> We need to estimate the resource group load in order to check whether
> the share is satisfied or not. Resource group load also gets lower than
> - the share when all the tasks in the resoruce group tends to sleep. We need
> to
> + the share when all the tasks in the resource group tends to sleep. We need
> to
> check whether the resource group needs to schedule more or not by hungry
> detection. If a resource group needs to schedule more, timeslices of tasks
> are scaled by timeslice scaling.
>
> 1. Load estimation
Will fix.
Thanks,
MAEDA Naoaki
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
