On 26 March 2013 13:50, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:25 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> @@ -3364,13 +3364,16 @@ done:
>> static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu)
>> {
>> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>> + u32 sum = rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum;
>> + u32 period = rq->avg.runnable_avg_period;
>> +
>> + sum = min(sum, period);
>
> OK this makes sense; use a simple sanity constraint instead of going
> overboard on serialization -- however, why is this a separate patch?
There is no real reason other than explaining why I have added this
additional check
>
> That is, this could easily be part of the patch that introduces
> is_buddy_busy(); also you likely want part of this patch's changelog
> to become a comment that goes right above this min() :-)
Yes, i 'm going to do that
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
