On 2 June 2016 at 01:41, Yuyang Du <[email protected]> wrote: > 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".
Or you can just describe the used case (1)(b) which is the only one AFAICT
