Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:27:21 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in check_preempt_wakeup |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 11:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> wrote: > > > > > We update_curr() versus the current entity as the preemption > > > decision is based on the relative vruntime. However, update_curr() > > > is not hierarchical and in the group scheduling case > > > find_matching_se() will have us making the comparison on a cfs_rq > > > different to the one just updated. > > > > Would be nice to include more contextual information in the > > changelog: how did you find it, what effect (if any) did you see > > from this patch, what effect do you expect others to see (if > > any). > > Agreed that the Changelog can be improved. From talking to pjt on > IRC though, I think he spotted this by reading through the code.
'code review' is a perfect answer to the 'how did you find it' question: when people read the changelog they will know that no practical effect has been observed (yet).
Thanks,
Ingo
| |