[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1485442458.15964.50.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:54:18 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/fpu: Simplify the fpu->last_cpu logic and
rename it to fpu->fpregs_cached
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 12:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> index c56fb57f2991..7eb2f3041fde 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1253,6 +1253,8 @@ void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> unsigned int new_cpu)
> p->sched_class->migrate_task_rq(p);
> p->se.nr_migrations++;
> perf_event_task_migrate(p);
> +
> + arch_task_migrate(p);
> }
>
Does it really count as a "simplification" if you add a
scheduler callback?
This code does not seem any easier to understand than
the old code...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists