[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50602849.70506@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:30:49 +0200
From: "Jan H. Schönherr"
<schnhrr@...tu-berlin.de>
To: pjt@...gle.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/16] sched: per-entity load-tracking
Hi Paul.
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb pjt@...gle.com:
> Please find attached the latest version for CFS load-tracking.
Originally, I thought, this series also takes care of
the leaf-cfs-runqueue ordering issue described here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/18/86
Now, that I had a closer look, I see that it does not take
care of it.
Is there still any reason why the leaf_cfs_rq-list must be sorted?
Or could we just get rid of the ordering requirement, now?
(That seems easier than to fix the issue, as I suspect that
__update_blocked_averages_cpu() might still punch some holes
in the hierarchy in some edge cases.)
I'd like to see that issue resolved. :)
Regards
Jan
--
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