On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 08:00 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Personally, I think it's best to leave it as it is. With that change,
> if someone changes policy while the task is waiting to get cpu, it will
> be requeued, and the on-runqueue bonus logic will then end up using
> wildly inaccurate information.
Bah, that's inverted. interactive_sleep() will never be true after a
rt->non-rt policy change while enqueued with your change, so on-runqueue
bonus will be disabled where it otherwise might have been enabled. Not
terribly interesting in any case given the likelihood, but still...
-Mike
-
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]
