[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191108131909.488364308@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:15:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qperret@...gle.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, qais.yousef@....com,
ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: Better document newidle_balance()
Whilst chasing the pick_next_task() race, there was some confusion
about the newidle_balance() return values. Document them.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9920,6 +9920,11 @@ static inline void nohz_newidle_balance(
/*
* idle_balance is called by schedule() if this_cpu is about to become
* idle. Attempts to pull tasks from other CPUs.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * <0 - we released the lock and there are !fair tasks present
+ * 0 - failed, no new tasks
+ * >0 - success, new (fair) tasks present
*/
int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
Powered by blists - more mailing lists