On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:32, J.A. Magallon wrote: > On 06.11, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Here is what the patch _should_ have been. (*same warnings with this > > patch about math demonstration and untested as should have been posted > > with the earlier one*) > > > > + if (idle == NOT_IDLE || rq->nr_running > 1) { > > + unsigned long prio_bias = 1; > > + if (rq->nr_running) > > + prio_bias = rq->prio_bias / rq->nr_running; > > + source_load *= prio_bias; > > + } > > Again... sorry, I don't try to be picky, just want to know if its worth or > not... > > Would not be better something like: > > if (idle == NOT_IDLE || rq->nr_running > 1) { > if (rq->nr_running) > source_load = (source_load*rq->prio_bias) / rq->nr_running; > } I understand your concern, but by definition rq->nr_running will always be a factor of rq->prio_bias so integer math should be fine. Either will do. Cheers, Con
Attachment:
pgp0NoWhLxmgb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- References:
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- From: "J.A. Magallon" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- Prev by Date: Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.12-rc6-mm1
- Index(es):