[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140331160003.GD19658@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:00:03 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: update_rq_clock() must skip ONE update
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> {
> s64 delta;
>
Mike,
If I understand this code correctly, skip_clock_update gets set to one,
where it should skip the next call to update_rq_clock(), but only the
next skip_clock_update(), and after that, it should resume calling it again.
Is that correct?
If so, can we add a comment here stating such. For example:
/*
* rq->skip_clock_update gets set to "1" to skip the next clock update.
* The following calls should continue to do the update unless
* rq->skip_clock_update gets set to "1" again.
*/
?
-- Steve
> - if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0)
> + if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0)
> return;
>
> delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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