[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070619015232.GE17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:22:32 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, pwil3058@...pond.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: v2.6.21.4-rt11
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified.
>
> If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then
> next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it?
Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all?
rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based
on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains.
By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case?
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists