Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

* Balbir Singh <[email protected]> wrote:

> The problem is with comparing a s64 values with (s64)ULONG_MAX, which 
> evaluates to -1. Then we check if exec_delta64 and fair_delta64 are 
> greater than (s64)ULONG_MAX (-1), if so we assign (s64)ULONG_MAX to 
> the respective values.

ah, indeed ...

> The fix is to compare these values against (s64)LONG_MAX and assign 
> (s64)LONG_MAX to exec_delta64 and fair_delta64 if they are greater 
> than (s64)LONG_MAX.
> 
> Tested on PowerPC, the regression is gone, tasks are load balanced as 
> they were in v7.

thanks, applied!

	Ingo
-
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] CFS scheduler, -v8
    • From: Esben Nielsen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
    • From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
    • From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)
• Next by Date: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
• 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]