[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070619054901.GA10981@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:19:01 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.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>,
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 08:46:03PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> @@ -2493,17 +2493,18 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, s
> unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + 60 * HZ;
>
> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
> - if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
> + unsigned long interval;
> +
Do we need a :
if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
continue;
here?
Otherwise patch look good and fixes the problem Paul observed earlier.
> + if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE)
> /* If we've pulled tasks over stop searching: */
> - pulled_task = load_balance_newidle(this_cpu,
> - this_rq, sd);
> - if (time_after(next_balance,
> - sd->last_balance + sd->balance_interval))
> - next_balance = sd->last_balance
> - + sd->balance_interval;
> - if (pulled_task)
> - break;
> - }
> + pulled_task = load_balance_newidle(this_cpu,this_rq, sd);
> +
> + interval = msecs_to_jiffies(sd->balance_interval);
> + if (time_after(next_balance,
> + sd->last_balance + interval))
> + next_balance = sd->last_balance + interval;
> + if (pulled_task)
> + break;
> }
> if (!pulled_task)
> /*
--
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