On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:15:17PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Vivek. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 03:46:09PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:41:19PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > To prepare for blkcg hierarchy support, add cfqg->nr_active and > > > ->level_weight. cfqg->nr_active counts the number of active cfqgs at > > > the cfqg's level and ->level_weight is sum of weights of those cfqgs. > > > The level covers itself (cfqg->leaf_weight) and immediate children. > > > > This notion of level is really confusing. If one says "at cfqg's level" > > I immediately associate with cfqg's siblings and not with cfqg's children. > > We can explicitly say at children's level but I think it should be > enough to explain it clearly in the comment where the field is > defined. > > > I think confusion happens because we are overloading the definition of > > cfqg. It is competing with its siblings at the same time it is competing > > against its child groups (on behalf of its children tasks). > > While I agree that part is a bit tricky, I can't think of a much > better way to describe it. Any better ideas? Can we call it cfqg->children_weight insted of cfqg->level_weight. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
