[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070619021342.GC7160@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:13:43 -0700
From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
"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 Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> 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?
rebalance_domains() have programmed ->next_balance based on 'busy' state.
And now, as it is going to 'idle', this routine is recalculating
the next_balance based on 'idle' state.
thanks,
suresh
-
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