Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq incheck_preempt_wakeup

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 11:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > We update_curr() versus the current entity as the preemption 
> > > decision is based on the relative vruntime.  However, update_curr() 
> > > is not hierarchical and in the group scheduling case 
> > > find_matching_se() will have us making the comparison on a cfs_rq 
> > > different to the one just updated.
> > 
> > Would be nice to include more contextual information in the 
> > changelog: how did you find it, what effect (if any) did you see 
> > from this patch, what effect do you expect others to see (if 
> > any).
> 
> Agreed that the Changelog can be improved. From talking to pjt on 
> IRC though, I think he spotted this by reading through the code.

'code review' is a perfect answer to the 'how did you find it' 
question: when people read the changelog they will know that no 
practical effect has been observed (yet).

Thanks,

	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/