[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B56C314.7000908@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:47:16 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/40] sched: add wakeup/sleep sched_notifiers and allow
NULL notifier ops
Hello,
On 01/19/2010 05:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I think so, still doing a wakeup from a wakeup sounds like trouble in
> that it has the potential to a thundering herd, so I'd really rather
> you'd not do something like that.
cmwq is not gonna do that and if someone is gonna do that there of
course needs to be some sort of limiting.
I still feel a bit uneasy about calling out external callbacks before
scheduler internal state update is complete. If you still think
moving it right below activate_task() would be better, I'll move it
and modify the comment above try_to_wake_up_local(). Please let me
know what you think.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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