lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: v2.6.21.4-rt11
    On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified.
    >
    > If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then
    > next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it?

    Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all?
    rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based
    on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains.
    By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case?

    --
    Regards,
    vatsa
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-19 03:51    [W:0.032 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site