On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:07:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Either way would be Ok with me, I would suggest retaining the history though
> so that the details in the changelog are preserved of the issues we faced,
> and in the future we can refer back to them.
Well, in part that's what we
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:27:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
> > pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
> >
> >
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> +static void se_fi_update(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned int fi_seq, bool
> forceidle)
> {
> - bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
> + bool root = true;
> + long old, new;
My compiler was not
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
> pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
>
> In particular, for cross-CPU comparisons, we were previously going to
> the root-level
A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
In particular, for cross-CPU comparisons, we were previously going to
the root-level se(s) for both the task being compared. That was strange.
This patch instead finds
5 matches
Mail list logo
