[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B17138D.3040003@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:25:33 +1000
From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] f83f9ac causes tasks running at MAX_PRIO
On 02/12/09 22:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hysterical reasons? That might have been a doorstop conversion kit for
> O(1), but boots fine with CFS, and prio 40 tasks are history.
In my (not so) humble opinion, there is still a lot of unnecessary cruft
in sched.c that should have been removed as the final (clean up) stage
of implementing CFS (i.e. stuff that was needed for O(1) but no longer
serves a useful purpose). I know that the extra overhead of this code
is probably inconsequential (and the compiler may even optimize some of
it away) but it looks untidy and makes the code harder to understand.
Recent patches that I've submitted were intended as a start to removing
some of this cruft and I had intended to send more patches after they
were accepted. I figured that it was better to do it as a number of
small changes rather than one big one. Should I continue?
Peter
--
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