On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> 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?
rebalance_domains() have programmed ->next_balance based on 'busy' state.
And now, as it is going to 'idle', this routine is recalculating
the next_balance based on 'idle' state.
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]
