| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:50:16 +0100 |
| |
a quick response, I'll read them more carefully tomorrow:
- why are the preferred cpu things pointers? afaict using just the cpu number is both smaller and clearer to the reader.
- in patch 5/5 you do:
+ spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock); + double_rq_lock(this_rq, busiest);
we call that double_lock_balance()
- comments go like:
/* * this is a multi- * line comment */
|