Messages in this thread | | | From | Uladzislau Rezki <> | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:20:39 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE |
| |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote: > On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog. >>>> >>>> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's >>>> feedback? >>>> >>> Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem. >>> >>>> >>>> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first >>>> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under >>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in >>>> detach_tasks(). > > > This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this? > I just wanted to put it under one line instead of using #ifdefs in my second hunk, so that is a matter of taste. Also, please find below different variants of how it can be rewriten:
<variant 1> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) #endif if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance) goto next; <variant 1>
<variant 2> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && (load / 2) > env->imbalance) goto next; #else if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance) goto next; #endif <variant 2>
If somebody has any preferences or concerns, please comment, i will re-spin the patch.
-- Uladzislau Rezki
| |