[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F952721.9030302@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:55:45 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
cfriesen@...tel.com, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE data structures.
On 04/23/2012 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:47 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> On 04/23/2012 11:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>> +struct sched_dl_entity {
>>>> + struct rb_node rb_node;
>>>> + int nr_cpus_allowed;
>>>
>>> I think it would be all-round best to move
>>> sched_rt_entity::nr_cpus_allowed out next to cpus_allowed.
>>
>> You mean unify them: a single nr_cpus_allowed after
>> task_struct::cpus_allowed, right?
>
> Yes, no point in keeping that one value twice and in fact there's a
> usage of p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed in sched/fair.c so its past time its
> moved out of that rt specific thing.
Sure. Since this is a small change, probably not strictly related to
this patchset, may I wait to see the change in mainline?
Thanks,
- Juri
--
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