On 08/26/2013 08:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:45:57AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: >>> @@ -5157,6 +5158,13 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *s >>> tmp->parent = parent->parent; >>> if (parent->parent) >>> parent->parent->child = tmp; >>> + /* >>> + * Transfer SD_PREFER_SIBLING down in case of a >>> + * degenerate parent; the spans match for this >>> + * so the property transfers. >>> + */ >>> + if (parent->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) >>> + tmp->flags |= SD_PREFER_SIBLING; >>> destroy_sched_domain(parent, cpu); >>> } else >>> tmp = tmp->parent; >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <p...@google.com> > > BTW, did that comment make sense to you or would you suggest something > different? I had/am having a hard time with that comment. Somehow it > leaves me wanting. I know I understand the issue now, but I'll doubt the > comment will suffice in a years time :/
The comment made sense to me :) -- All rights reversed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
