lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
From
Date
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:48 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:49 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't sd == NULL is most cases if you don't move the sd assignment
> > > before the affine_sd assignment?
> >
> > sd will usually be NULL regardless of where the assignment is, as
> > SD_BALANCE_WAKE is usually off in ->flags. Josef is turning it on.
>
> Right. SD_BALANCE_WAKE needs to set in the sd flags and the assignment
> has to happen before the break for this to work. I just don't see
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE being enabled for the sched_domain anywhere in the
> patch?

He's doing that via proc interface.. well, I presume he is anyway.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-28 14:21    [W:2.076 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site