[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52CA92C3.50200@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:25:55 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] sched: cleanup trigger_load_balance
On 01/06/2014 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:19:04PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> I understand. Happy new year !
>
> Happy new year to you too! :-)
>
>> ps : the patchset is based on tip/sched/core
>
> Weird; because tip/sched/core as per today looks like:
>
>
> 029632fbb7b7c kernel/sched_fair.c (Peter Zijlstra 2011-10-25 10:00:11 +0200 6872) void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
>
> And your patches assume it looks like:
>
> Patch 1: @@ -6878,7 +6878,7 @@ void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
> Patch 2: @@ -6875,10 +6875,10 @@ void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
> Patch 4:
> void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
> {
> - int cpu = rq->cpu;
> -
>
> Which obviously doesn't quite work..
>
>
> So I can make it fit.. but I do wonder what I'm missing here..
Ah, ok. I got it. I missed to send the first patch of my patchset:
sched: reduce trigger_load_balance parameters
Let me resend the patchset with the missing patch.
Sorry for the inconvenience
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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