On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
I just wanted to put it under one line instead of using #ifdefs in my
second hunk,
so that is a matter of taste. Also, please find below different
variants of how it can be
rewriten:

<variant 1>
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
    if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
#endif
        if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance)
            goto next;
<variant 1>

<variant 2>
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
    if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE &&
            (load / 2) > env->imbalance)
        goto next;
#else
    if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance)
        goto next;
#endif
<variant 2>

If somebody has any preferences or concerns, please comment, i will
re-spin the patch.

--
Uladzislau Rezki

Reply via email to