[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140903153011.GR4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:30:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [QUERY] Confusing usage of rq->nr_running in load balancing
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:51:45PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are places in kernel/sched/fair.c in the load balancing part where
> rq->nr_running is used as against cfs_rq->nr_running. At least I could
> Did I miss something or is it true that the usage of rq->nr_running in
> the above places is incorrect?
Yeah, smells fishy. Probably hysterical accidents that haven't been
cleaned up yet. I do remember a few patches cleaning some of this up
recently. Clearly there's more to do.
--
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