Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE

From	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE
Date	2017-02-15 20:00 +0100
Message-ID	<tbcY2-3Ds-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <t8W1l-66e-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <t92gq-1CS-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tapkC-4q8-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tass9-6EK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <taQ1s-5hv-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>>>
>>> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog.
>>>
>>> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's
>>> feedback?
>>>
>> Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first
>>> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under
>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in
>>> detach_tasks().

This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use 
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this?

>>> But your second hunk, which ignores the actual load of tasks in favour
>>> of just moving _something_ already, is utterly dangerous if not coupled
>>> with these two other conditions, so arguably that too should be under
>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>>>
>> I see your point. Will round both with CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>>
> I have upload a new patch, please find it here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334
>

Thread

Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 19:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2017-02-15 20:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:30 +0100

csiph-web