Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Care divide error in update_task_scan_period()

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

(2014/10/09 1:54), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:42:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 10/08/2014 02:43 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >
> > >    The divide error is rare case because the trigger is node offline.
> > >    By this patch, when both of private and shared are set to 0, diff
> > >    is just set to 0, not calculating the division.
> >
> > How about a simple
> >
> >      if (private + shared) == 0)
> >            return;
> >
> > higher up in the function, to avoid adding an extra
> > layer of indentation and confusion to the main part
> > of the function?
>
> At which point we'll have 3 different return semantics. Should we not
> clear numa_faults_localityp[], even in this case?

I'm not familiar with Numa balancing feature. So I want to know it too.
If it's not necessary to clear numa_faults_locality[], I'll apply the idea.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

--
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/