>> >> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog. >> >> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's >> feedback? >> > Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem. > >> >> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first >> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under >> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in >> detach_tasks(). >> >> But your second hunk, which ignores the actual load of tasks in favour >> of just moving _something_ already, is utterly dangerous if not coupled >> with these two other conditions, so arguably that too should be under >> CONFIG_PREEMPT. >> > I see your point. Will round both with CONFIG_PREEMPT. > I have upload a new patch, please find it here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334
-- Uladzislau Rezki