[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3.
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.023 / U:81.952 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site