On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:44:15AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > 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.
I suspected as much, but it wasn't clear from the Changelog, the patch or any comments. Plz as to fix. -- 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/
