Messages in this thread | | | From | Uladzislau Rezki <> | Date | Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:35:42 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE |
| |
Hello.
Let's decide how to proceed with https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334 patch. Despite it is not a big change, i think it is important and ready to be submited, unless there are still any comments.
-- Uladzislau Rezki
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dietmar Eggemann > <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote: >> On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog. >>>>> >>>>> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's >>>>> feedback? >>>>> >>>> Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first >>>>> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under >>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in >>>>> detach_tasks(). >> >> >> This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use >> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this? >> > I just wanted to put it under one line instead of using #ifdefs in my > second hunk, > so that is a matter of taste. Also, please find below different > variants of how it can be > rewriten: > > <variant 1> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) > #endif > if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance) > goto next; > <variant 1> > > <variant 2> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && > (load / 2) > env->imbalance) > goto next; > #else > if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance) > goto next; > #endif > <variant 2> > > If somebody has any preferences or concerns, please comment, i will > re-spin the patch. > > -- > Uladzislau Rezki
| |