On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:29:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > My response to your above two comments: > > > > As I said, there can be four possibilities going through the above > > sequences: > > > > (1) on_rq, (2) !on_rq, (a) was fair class (representing last_update_time != > > 0), > > (b) never was fair class (representing last_update_time == 0, but may not be > > limited to this) > > > > Crossing them, we have (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), and (2)(b). > > > > Some will attach twice, which are (1)(b) and (2)(b), the other will attach > > once, which are (1)(a) and (2)(a). The difficult part is they can be > > attached > > at different places. > > ok for (1)(b) but not for (2)(b) and it's far from "attached mostly > twice every time"
You are right. That claim is reckless, I will change it to: "sometimes attached twice".
