[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/Tecdpxls3N6pO+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:08:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, qyousef@...alina.io,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
David.Laight@...lab.com, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
tj@...nel.org, qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority
at wakeup
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:21:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Should we perhaps also do this for latency_nice == 0?, in any case I
> > think this can be moved to its own patch to avoid doing too much in the
> > one patch. It seems fairly self contained.
>
> This function is then removed by patch 9 as the additional rb tree
> fixes all cases
Also, since you remove it again later, perhaps not introduce it at all?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists