On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 09:23:32AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > I think we need to change this to
> > if (skip_for_load && idx < this_best_prio && idx == busiest_best_prio)
> > skip_for_load = !busiest_best_prio_seen;
> >
> > Otherwise we will reset skip_for_load to '0' even for the tasks whose prio is
> > less than this_best_prio but not equal to busiest_best_prio.
>
> And why is that a problem? The intention of this code is to make sure
> at least one busiest_best_prio task doesn't get moved as a result of the
> "skip for reasons of load weight" mechanism being overridden by the "idx
> < this_best_prio" exception. I can't see how this intention is being
> subverted.
There might be scenarios where we will endup moving other priority tasks(
not those with busiest_best_prio) which will still become highest priority
on new queue. This may or may not be bad. But this was not our intention
with the intended code, right?
thanks,
suresh
-
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]
