Re: v2.6.21.4-rt11

[Siddha, Suresh B]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified.
> > 
> > If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then
> > next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it?
> 
> Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all?
> rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based
> on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains.
> By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case?

rebalance_domains() have programmed ->next_balance based on 'busy' state.
And now, as it is going to 'idle', this routine is recalculating
the next_balance based on 'idle' state.

thanks,
suresh
-
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/