Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:48 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:49 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > 
> > > Isn't sd == NULL is most cases if you don't move the sd assignment
> > > before the affine_sd assignment?
> > 
> > sd will usually be NULL regardless of where the assignment is, as
> > SD_BALANCE_WAKE is usually off in ->flags.  Josef is turning it on.
> 
> Right. SD_BALANCE_WAKE needs to set in the sd flags and the assignment
> has to happen before the break for this to work. I just don't see
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE being enabled for the sched_domain anywhere in the
> patch?

He's doing that via proc interface.. well, I presume he is anyway.

	-Mike

--
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/