Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:53:25 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() |
| |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> > > Mmm, this looks like Peter's proposed patch, maybe add (at least) a > Suggested-by: him ?
Hi Juri,
Why not. I will add it from the next spin.
BTW, is it enough? I don't know the way I should do, whenever I got thankful suggestions. I really want to add them as a separate patch which can be stacked on my patches _if possible_. But in case that it's better to merge them into one like this, I don't know how.
I mean I will add 'Suggested-by' from now on - I learned what I should do (at least) in this case thanks to Juri, but I'm still not sure if it's enough.
Speaking of which, I have something to ask Peterz and Ingo for. I really want to interact with maintainers actively e.g. asking ways they prefer. But it takes too much long to get responses from them e.g. at most 2 monthes in case rushing them. I should have decided and done what the best I think is, than asking.
It would be very appriciated if you pay more attention.
> > @@ -1376,8 +1399,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task) > > return this_cpu; > > } > > > > - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask, > > - sched_domain_span(sd)); > > + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer); > > /* > > * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask > > * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our > > @@ -1385,6 +1407,26 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task) > > * already under consideration through later_mask. > > */ > > It seems that the comment above should be updated as well.
How? Could you explain it more?
Thanks, Byungchul
| |