lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-02 12:29    [W:0.083 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site