On 01/06/2014 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:19:04PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I understand. Happy new year !
Happy new year to you too! :-)
ps : the patchset is based on tip/sched/core
Weird; because tip/sched/core as per today looks like:
029632fbb7b7c kernel/sched_fair.c (Peter Zijlstra 2011-10-25 10:00:11
+0200 6872) void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
And your patches assume it looks like:
Patch 1: @@ -6878,7 +6878,7 @@ void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
Patch 2: @@ -6875,10 +6875,10 @@ void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
Patch 4:
void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq)
{
- int cpu = rq->cpu;
-
Which obviously doesn't quite work..
So I can make it fit.. but I do wonder what I'm missing here..
Ah, ok. I got it. I missed to send the first patch of my patchset:
sched: reduce trigger_load_balance parameters
Let me resend the patchset with the missing patch.
Sorry for the inconvenience
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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/