[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72105DE171429F468B83CE64C279BFFA17615B6B@SUSHDC8002.TD.TERADATA.COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:06:57 +0000
From: "Meyer, Mike" <Mike.Meyer@...adata.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sched: fix task and run queue run_delay inconsistencies
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:37:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:28:41PM +0000, Meyer, Mike wrote:
>
> It looks like the sites in the wakeup path do indeed not get any additional
> conditionals.
>
> > > My only comment is I am not sure about the naming of the flag
> > > ENQUEUE_TEMP which implies (to me) the enqueue is temporary which
> > > clearly it isn't. Maybe something like
> DEQUEUE_MOVE/ENQUEUE_MOVE
> > > would be a bit more descriptive of the use case.
> >
> > Yes, I ran out of creative juices, let me attempt a better name once
> > I've woken up a bit.
>
> How about DEQUEUE_SAVE, ENQUEUE_RESTORE ? Ideally I'd wrap the whole
> pattern into a helper but C isn't really supportive of pre+post patterns like
> this.
Sounds fine to me!
Thanks again.
--
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