On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified.
>
> If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then
> next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it?
Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all?
rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based
on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains.
By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case?
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
