On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This patch removes the obscure comment which was
> > saying this path can be entered only for wake-balance.
>
> The comment was meant to ask if we want
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This patch removes the obscure comment which was
> > saying this path can be entered only for wake-balance.
>
> The comment was meant to ask if we want
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch removes the obscure comment which was
> saying this path can be entered only for wake-balance.
The comment was meant to ask if we want to always do
select_idle_siblings() and not only on wakeups.
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch removes the obscure comment which was
> saying this path can be entered only for wake-balance.
The comment was meant to ask if we want to always do
select_idle_siblings() and not only on wakeups.
I was playing with cpusets and sched_load_balance flag and notice that
the fast-path (select_idle_sibling) can also be attempted for
exec-balance, not just wake-balance if the waker cpu's cpuset has
sched_load_balance = 0. This patch removes the obscure comment which was
saying this path can be
I was playing with cpusets and sched_load_balance flag and notice that
the fast-path (select_idle_sibling) can also be attempted for
exec-balance, not just wake-balance if the waker cpu's cpuset has
sched_load_balance = 0. This patch removes the obscure comment which was
saying this path can be
6 matches
Mail list logo
