[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251028153351.GN3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:33:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Reimplement NEXT_BUDDY to align with
EEVDF goals
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:39:15PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -8783,7 +8862,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int
> * When non-idle entity preempt an idle entity,
> * don't give idle entity slice protection.
> */
> - do_preempt_short = true;
> + do_preempt_short = PREEMPT_WAKEUP_NEXT;
> goto preempt;
> }
I'm confused, should this not be WAKEUP_RESCHED?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists