On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 02/11/2014 04:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:01:04PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>The idle_balance() function is called within a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP section. > >> > >>Remove its declaration in sched.h for !CONFIG_SMP because it is pointless. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> > > > >The below again makes a horrible mess of idle_balance() -- which you > >tried to clean up.. but it does rid us of some #ifdef goo. > > > >Hmmm? > > Yes, it sounds ok. > > Why is idle_enter_fair() called unconditionally in idle_balance() ? > Isn't the call in pick_next_task_idle enough ? Shouldn't be called when we > will go to idle effectively ? > > If I am not wrong idle_enter_fair() is called from idle_balance() but a task > may be pulled, so we the next task won't be the idle task and idle_exit_fair > won't be called at put_prev_task. > > May be I missed this change which was done at purpose in the previous > patchset you sent...
lkml.kernel.org/r/cakftptammhq0tbpu+pk_uzwrfum-6fz4do1yrzc4nrqs4cz...@mail.gmail.com I seem to be terminally confused on the subject, but Vincent explains it there I think. -- 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/
