Re: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> +		if (local_group && balance_cpu != this_cpu && balance) {
								^^^^^

This would need to be *balance right? balance is always != 0.

> +			*balance = 0;
> +			goto ret;
> +		}

How well was this patch tested?

We already have idle processors pulling processes from elsewhere in the 
system. Load balancing on an idle processor could only replicate the 
balance on idle logic.


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances
    • From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances
    • From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: RFC: implement daemon() in the kernel
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH][kprobe] enabling booster on the preemptible kernel
• Previous by thread: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]