On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
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().
This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this?
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