[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170713013808.GF20323@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:38:08 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bristot@...hat.com, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a
closer cpu in topology
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:13:36PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > @@ -1367,6 +1364,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > if (sd->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) {
Hi,
> This is orthogonal to the proposed change, but I'm wondering if it make
> sense to do the following only for SD_WAKE_AFFINE domains. The
Actually I also wonder it..
> consideration applies to RT as well, actually. Also, find_later_rq gets
> called when trying to push tasks away as well and in that case checking
> for this flag seems inappropriate? Peter, Steve?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists