[<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