[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180216094922.GY25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:49:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] sched: Rename root_domain->overload to
should_idle_balance
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:14:02AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > index 7d324b706e67..4215438667e5 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -650,8 +650,12 @@ struct root_domain {
> > cpumask_var_t span;
> > cpumask_var_t online;
> >
> > - /* Indicate more than one runnable task for any CPU */
> > - bool overload;
> > + /*
> > + * Indicate whether the idle balance can be used to solve
> > + * imbalance within the root domain.
> > + * e.g. There is more than one runnable task for any CPU
> > + */
> > + bool should_idle_balance;
>
> Current name is however consistent with RT/DL's naming convention
Yeah, not a fan either. We've consistently used the term to mean
nr_running>1. The thing to fix there is the stupid bool, not the name.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists