lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt()
From
Date
On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 03:58 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Steven, what is about the patch from my previous message? Is everything ok?

You're timing is impeccable. I was in Chemnitz, Germany when you sent
this, and it too was lost in the noise ;-)

I'll take a look at it today.

Thanks!

-- Steve


>
> Regards,
> Kirill
>
> 19.02.2012, 18:17, "Kirill Tkhai" <tkhai@yandex.ru>:
> > 13.02.2012, 21:23, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>:
> >
> >> I wasn't on the Cc of the original message, but it was bounced to me
> >> awhile ago. I'm cleaning out my email and came across it.
> >>
> >> Can you send me the latest version of this patch, either against latest
> >> Linus, or against tip/master.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -- Steve
> >>
> >> P.S. I'll be at ELC this week so it may not get processed right away.
> >
> > Migration status depends on a difference of weight from 0 and 1.
> > If weight > 1 (<= 1) and old weight <= 1 (> 1) then task becomes
> > pushable (or not pushable). We are not insterested in its exact
> > values, is it 3 or 4, for example.
> >
> > Now if we are changing affinity from a set of 3 cpus to a set of 4, the-
> > task will be dequeued and enqueued sequentially without important
> > difference in comparison with initial state. The only difference is in
> > internal representation of plist queue of pushable tasks and the fact
> > that the task may won't be the first in a sequence of the same priority
> > tasks. But it seems to me it gives nothing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tkhai Kirill <tkhai@yandex.ru>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-10 16:01    [W:0.083 / U:3.744 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site