Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt() | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:58:42 -0400 |
| |
On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 03:58 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > Steven, what is about the patch from my previous message? Is everything ok?
You're timing is impeccable. I was in Chemnitz, Germany when you sent this, and it too was lost in the noise ;-)
I'll take a look at it today.
Thanks!
-- Steve
> > Regards, > Kirill > > 19.02.2012, 18:17, "Kirill Tkhai" <tkhai@yandex.ru>: > > 13.02.2012, 21:23, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>: > > > >> I wasn't on the Cc of the original message, but it was bounced to me > >> awhile ago. I'm cleaning out my email and came across it. > >> > >> Can you send me the latest version of this patch, either against latest > >> Linus, or against tip/master. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- Steve > >> > >> P.S. I'll be at ELC this week so it may not get processed right away. > > > > Migration status depends on a difference of weight from 0 and 1. > > If weight > 1 (<= 1) and old weight <= 1 (> 1) then task becomes > > pushable (or not pushable). We are not insterested in its exact > > values, is it 3 or 4, for example. > > > > Now if we are changing affinity from a set of 3 cpus to a set of 4, the- > > task will be dequeued and enqueued sequentially without important > > difference in comparison with initial state. The only difference is in > > internal representation of plist queue of pushable tasks and the fact > > that the task may won't be the first in a sequence of the same priority > > tasks. But it seems to me it gives nothing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tkhai Kirill <tkhai@yandex.ru>
| |