Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3. | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 16 Jun 2002 20:35:00 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:24, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2002, Robert Love wrote: > > > > +int idle_cpu(int cpu) > > > +{ > > > + return cpu_curr(cpu) == cpu_rq(cpu)->idle; > > > +} > > > + > > > > I did not include this in my original O(1) backport update because > > nothing in 2.4-ac seems to use it... so why include it? > > i have planned to submit the irqbalance patch for 2.4-ac real soon, which > needs this function - current IRQ distribution on P4 SMP boxes is a > showstopper.
Fair enough.
> > > - sched_setaffinity() & sched_getaffinity() syscalls on x86. > > > > Do we want to introduce this into 2.4 now? I realize 2.4-ac is not 2.4 > > proper, but if there is a chance this interface could change... > > the setaffinity()/getaffinity() interface looks pretty robust, i dont > expect any changes - there's just so many ways to set an affinity mask for > an opaque set of CPUs. And being able to set affinities is something that > was frequently asked for by application developers.
I agree it seems robust and there have been no complaints, although there could always be changes to the interface. Personally I'd like the interfaces in 2.4/2.4-ac sooner rather than later too - I just want to make sure we do not "etch it in stone" prematurely.
> IMO BUG_ON() is just an ugly way of doing an assert(), i dont like code > with magic conditionals embedded within. But, the main reason was that > 2.5-mainline has the code so that's being used.
Heh I like BUG_ON :-)
> like above, 2.5 is the reference base. Especially for 100% nonfunctional > things like this it makes no sense to apply them to 2.4-ac only. But i > agree that existing comment fixes should be forward ported into 2.5, i've > applied them to my tree.
I agree the changes are nonfunctional and thus not a big deal...but I didn't see a point in pushing erroneous changes onto 2.4-ac, whether they are in 2.5 or not.
Although now it is all a moot point - Linus merged the patch I posted earlier with the 2.4-ac bits against 2.5... so now a diff of 2.4-ac and 2.5 will be proper. ;-)
Robert Love
- 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/
| |