On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:58:48PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > You add extra code the hot dequeue path for something that 'never' > > happens. We have the sched_class::task_dead call for that. > > I don't mind using sched_class::task_dead() instead. The reason why I > didn't go that way is that we have to retake the rq->lock or mess with > cfs_rq::removed_load instead of just not adding the utilization in > the first place when we have the rq->lock. > > Anyway, it is probably redundant by now. I will check Yuyang's code to > see if he already fixed this problem. He did, he used the removed_load stuff, same as migration does. -- 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/
