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:0.167 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site