[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29NvvJCYyEnEkDt4JgZacf6XLd+0wxx_BNGnX8oZcrBp4EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:45:47 -0700
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cpuset: distribute tasks within affinity masks
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:35 AM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
>
> On 03/17/20 14:35, Josh Don wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:05 AM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It might be a good idea to split the API from the user too.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify?
>
> I meant it'd be a good idea to split the cpumask API into its own patch and
> have a separate patch for the user in sched/core.c. But that was a small nit.
> If the user (in sched/core.c) somehow introduces a regression, reverting it
> separately should be trivial.
>
> Thanks
Ah, yes I agree that sounds like a good idea, I can do that.
Peter, any other nit before I re-send?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists