On 07/12/2018 22:36, Steven Sistare wrote: > On 12/7/2018 3:21 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> On 06/12/2018 21:28, Steve Sistare wrote: >> [...] >>> @@ -6778,20 +6791,22 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, >>> struct task_struct *p, int wake_ >>> update_misfit_status(NULL, rq); >>> >>> /* >>> - * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we >>> - * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time. >>> + * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling try_steal() or >>> + * idle_balance(), such that we measure the duration as idle time. >>> */ >>> rq_idle_stamp_update(rq); >> >> idle_balance() has a >> >> /* >> * Do not pull tasks towards !active CPUs... >> */ >> if (!cpu_active(this_cpu)) >> return 0; >> >> check which we probably want for stealing too, so we could hoist it up here >> to cover both idle_balance() and try_steal(). > > try_steal() already checks cpu_active. I could hoist it. >
Ah yeah I missed that one, I had only seen cpu_active(src_cpu) in steal_from(). It's all good then. [...]
