[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <876236rdum.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:54:09 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Get rid of unnecessary checks from select_idle_sibling
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:33:40 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 02:50 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
>>
>> AFAICS @target cpu of select_idle_sibling() is always either prev_cpu
>> or this_cpu. So no need to check it again and the conditionals can be
>> consolidated.
[snip]
> Uh, we don't know if the target is this_cpu or previous cpu, If we just
> check the target idle status, we may miss another idle cpu. So this
> patch change the logical in this function.
select_idle_sibling() is called only in select_task_rq_fair() if it
found a suitable affine_sd. The default target is the 'prev_cpu' of the
task but if wake_affine() returns true it'd be (this) 'cpu'.
I cannot see where the prev_cpu or the cpu is set to another one before
calling select_idle_sibling.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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