[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150528114804.GA17879@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:48:04 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, "riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
BALANCE_WAKE
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:49 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > Isn't sd == NULL is most cases if you don't move the sd assignment
> > before the affine_sd assignment?
>
> sd will usually be NULL regardless of where the assignment is, as
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE is usually off in ->flags. Josef is turning it on.
Right. SD_BALANCE_WAKE needs to set in the sd flags and the assignment
has to happen before the break for this to work. I just don't see
SD_BALANCE_WAKE being enabled for the sched_domain anywhere in the
patch?
--
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