[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimjkK-q63x5DrEj+9=pF8zbW7mJ2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:39:39 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: shorten setting the allowed cpu mask of task
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com> wrote:
> When setting the allowed cpu mask for a given task, if the task is
> already bound to certain cpu, after checking the validity of the new
Maybe we don't need to restrict it only on task bound to certain cpu.
> mask of allowed cpus, job is done, and no further efforts needed for
> the valid case as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
> ---
>
> --- a/kernel/sched.c 2011-04-27 11:48:50.000000000 +0800
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c 2011-05-06 20:39:58.000000000 +0800
> @@ -5899,9 +5899,9 @@ again:
> goto out;
> }
>
> - if (unlikely((p->flags & PF_THREAD_BOUND) && p != current &&
> - !cpumask_equal(&p->cpus_allowed, new_mask))) {
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> + if ((p->flags & PF_THREAD_BOUND) && p != current) {
> + if (!cpumask_equal(&p->cpus_allowed, new_mask))
IOW, we could make '!cpumask_equal(&p->cpus_allowed, new_mask)'
be a separated condition. And I don't see any potential problem with it.
Thanks,
Yong
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out;
> }
>
--
Only stand for myself
--
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