[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110702102721.GE17482@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:27:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in
check_preempt_wakeup
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 11:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We update_curr() versus the current entity as the preemption
> > > decision is based on the relative vruntime. However, update_curr()
> > > is not hierarchical and in the group scheduling case
> > > find_matching_se() will have us making the comparison on a cfs_rq
> > > different to the one just updated.
> >
> > Would be nice to include more contextual information in the
> > changelog: how did you find it, what effect (if any) did you see
> > from this patch, what effect do you expect others to see (if
> > any).
>
> Agreed that the Changelog can be improved. From talking to pjt on
> IRC though, I think he spotted this by reading through the code.
'code review' is a perfect answer to the 'how did you find it'
question: when people read the changelog they will know that no
practical effect has been observed (yet).
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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