On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:48, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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.
Hmm. No you are right and I'm smoking crack, but integer math should still be
accurate enough here. Let me think about the accuracy before spraying more
patches like a fool.
Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
