Re: [PATCH] [sched] redundant reschedule when set_user_nice() boosts a prio of a task from the "expired" array

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> so
> 
> - your code only gets publically tested in its against-staircase 
>   version
> 
> - the against-mainline version will get merged without having been
>   publically tested outside of staircase
> 
> which is probably all OK for a 2.6.22-rc1 thing, provided Ingo can 
> give a confident ack.

it looks good to me - and once i get a non-whitespace-damaged patch i'll 
put it into -rt so we'll have testing. (this patch should have at most a 
latency impact, if we forget to preempt somewhere, and -rt users are 
quite touchy about latencies.)

> Where are we at with staircase anyway?  Is it looking like a 2.6.22 
> thing? I don't personally think we've yet seen enough serious 
> performance testing to permit a merge, apart from other issues...

yes, that's my thinking too at the moment. I'd also like to see a 
summary of 'open design questions' list from Mike (if Mike has 
time/energy for that?) - many questions were raised, a good number of 
them were answered, various changes done to SD but there's no good 
summary of the current state of affairs.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/