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:0.053 / U:2.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site