[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131014140618.GA26604@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:06:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, 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@...il.com, liming.wang@...driver.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
harald.gustafsson@...csson.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
bruce.ashfield@...driver.com--no-chain-reply-to
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] sched: make dl_bw a sub-quota of rt_bw
* Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com> wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> +#else
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> +#else
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> +#endif
Btw., this kind of SMP/UP assymetry pattern really sucks. Why not make UP
use the SMP data structure, even if it's degenerate?
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