On Fri, 1 May 2015 10:02:47 +0800
pang.xun...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > >
> > > - Remove "!test_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr)" condition, because
> > > the flag might be set right before the waking up, but we still
> > > need to push equal or lower priority tasks, it should be removed.
> > > Without
From: Xunlei Pang
- Remove "has_pushable_tasks(rq)" condition, because for queued p,
"!task_running(rq, p)" and "p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1" implies true
"has_pushable_tasks(rq)".
- Remove "!test_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr)" condition, because
the flag might be set right before the waking up, but we
On Fri, 1 May 2015 00:33:18 +0800
Xunlei Pang wrote:
> From: Xunlei Pang
>
> - Remove "has_pushable_tasks(rq)" condition, because for queued p,
> "!task_running(rq, p)" and "p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1" implies true
> "has_pushable_tasks(rq)".
This makes sense.
>
> - Remove
From: Xunlei Pang pang.xun...@linaro.org
- Remove has_pushable_tasks(rq) condition, because for queued p,
!task_running(rq, p) and p-nr_cpus_allowed 1 implies true
has_pushable_tasks(rq).
- Remove !test_tsk_need_resched(rq-curr) condition, because
the flag might be set right before the waking
On Fri, 1 May 2015 00:33:18 +0800
Xunlei Pang xlp...@126.com wrote:
From: Xunlei Pang pang.xun...@linaro.org
- Remove has_pushable_tasks(rq) condition, because for queued p,
!task_running(rq, p) and p-nr_cpus_allowed 1 implies true
has_pushable_tasks(rq).
This makes sense.
- Remove
On Fri, 1 May 2015 10:02:47 +0800
pang.xun...@zte.com.cn wrote:
- Remove !test_tsk_need_resched(rq-curr) condition, because
the flag might be set right before the waking up, but we still
need to push equal or lower priority tasks, it should be removed.
Without this condition, we
6 matches
Mail list logo