Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:48:51 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove idle_balance() declaration in sched.h |
| |
On 02/11/2014 04:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 02/11/2014 04:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:01:04PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> The idle_balance() function is called within a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP section. >>>> >>>> Remove its declaration in sched.h for !CONFIG_SMP because it is pointless. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>> >>> The below again makes a horrible mess of idle_balance() -- which you >>> tried to clean up.. but it does rid us of some #ifdef goo. >>> >>> Hmmm? >> >> Yes, it sounds ok. >> >> Why is idle_enter_fair() called unconditionally in idle_balance() ? >> Isn't the call in pick_next_task_idle enough ? Shouldn't be called when we >> will go to idle effectively ? >> >> If I am not wrong idle_enter_fair() is called from idle_balance() but a task >> may be pulled, so we the next task won't be the idle task and idle_exit_fair >> won't be called at put_prev_task. >> >> May be I missed this change which was done at purpose in the previous >> patchset you sent... > > lkml.kernel.org/r/CAKfTPtAMmhq0tBpu+pk_uzwrfUM-6Fz4Do1yrzc4NRQS4cZ_-A@mail.gmail.com > > I seem to be terminally confused on the subject, but Vincent explains it > there I think.
Ok, thanks. I will read again the thread carefully.
-- Daniel
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
-- 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/
| |