26 Mar
2013
26 Mar
'13
1:06 p.m.
On 26 March 2013 13:50, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:25 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
@@ -3364,13 +3364,16 @@ done: static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu) { struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
u32 sum = rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum;u32 period = rq->avg.runnable_avg_period;sum = min(sum, period);OK this makes sense; use a simple sanity constraint instead of going overboard on serialization -- however, why is this a separate patch?
There is no real reason other than explaining why I have added this additional check
That is, this could easily be part of the patch that introduces is_buddy_busy(); also you likely want part of this patch's changelog to become a comment that goes right above this min() :-)
Yes, i 'm going to do that