[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <544661BA.3040203@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:38:02 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: don't need to check SD_BALANCE_FORK
Hi,
On 21/10/14 13:18, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Cc Juri,
>
> δΊ 10/14/14, 10:22 AM, Wanpeng Li ει:
>> There is no need to do balance during fork since SCHED_DEADLINE
>> tasks can't fork. This patch avoid the SD_BALANCE_FORK check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> index abfaf3d..f46b7f1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> @@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
>> struct task_struct *curr;
>> struct rq *rq;
>>
>> - if (sd_flag != SD_BALANCE_WAKE && sd_flag != SD_BALANCE_FORK)
>> + if (sd_flag != SD_BALANCE_WAKE)
>> goto out;
>>
>> rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
Yes, makes sense.
Thanks,
- Juri
--
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