On 12 November 2013 11:32, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> +int sched_proc_update_packing(struct ctl_table *table, int write, >> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, >> + loff_t *ppos) >> +{ >> + int ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos); >> + if (ret || !write) >> + return ret; >> + >> + if (sysctl_sched_packing_level) >> + sd_pack_threshold = (100 * 1024) / sysctl_sched_packing_level; >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PACKING_TASKS >> +static int min_sched_packing_level; >> +static int max_sched_packing_level = 100; >> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PACKING_TASKS >> + { >> + .procname = "sched_packing_level", >> + .data = &sysctl_sched_packing_level, >> + .maxlen = sizeof(int), >> + .mode = 0644, >> + .proc_handler = sched_proc_update_packing, >> + .extra1 = &min_sched_packing_level, >> + .extra2 = &max_sched_packing_level, >> + }, >> +#endif > > Shouldn't min_sched_packing_level be 1? Userspace can now write 0 and > expect something; but then we don't update sd_pack_threshold so nothing > really changed.
value 0 is used to disable to packing feature and the scheduler falls back to default behavior. This value is tested when setting which cpus will be used by the scheduler. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
