On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> +int sched_proc_update_packing(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> + loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + int ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> + if (ret || !write)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (sysctl_sched_packing_level)
> + sd_pack_threshold = (100 * 1024) / sysctl_sched_packing_level;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PACKING_TASKS
> +static int min_sched_packing_level;
> +static int max_sched_packing_level = 100;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PACKING_TASKS
> + {
> + .procname = "sched_packing_level",
> + .data = &sysctl_sched_packing_level,
> + .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> + .mode = 0644,
> + .proc_handler = sched_proc_update_packing,
> + .extra1 = &min_sched_packing_level,
> + .extra2 = &max_sched_packing_level,
> + },
> +#endif
Shouldn't min_sched_packing_level be 1? Userspace can now write 0 and
expect something; but then we don't update sd_pack_threshold so nothing
really changed.
--
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/
