Re: Why one of the 2 patches to fix "autogroup" sched problem on UPmachines is missing in -rc3?

[Kazuhisa Ichikawa]

> Actually the merged one hide the initialising problem.
> Because when we enqueue a process to an empty group, update_cfs_shares()
> will be called, thus tg->se->load is updated.
> enqueue_task_fair()
>  update_cfs_shares()
>    reweight_entity()
>      update_load_set()

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!

- Kazuhisa


2011/2/1 Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:05:23PM +0900, Kazuhisa Ichikawa wrote:
>> Hi Yong,
>>
>> Now 2.6.38-rc3 is out, and I think one of the 2 patches you wrote to
>> fix "autogroup" sched problem on UP machines is missing there.
>
> Actually the merged one hide the initialising problem.
> Because when we enqueue a process to an empty group, update_cfs_shares()
> will be called, thus tg->se->load is updated.
> enqueue_task_fair()
>  update_cfs_shares()
>    reweight_entity()
>      update_load_set()
>
>>
>> More precisely, your first patch for kernel/sched.c (titled:?sched:
>> tg->se->load should be initialised to tg->shares) is missing, while
>> the second one for kernel/sched_fair.c (titled:?sched: Fix poor
>> interactivity on UP systems due to group scheduler nice tune bug) is
>> in -rc3.
>
> See my above answer.
>
>>
>> So what happened to the first patch? Was it superseded and made
>> obsolete by the second patch?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> # Sorry for not replying to your original post. I'm not subscribing to
>> linux kernel mailing list.
>
> Thanks for taking care of this issue :)
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
--
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/