On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:44:47PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> What about the update of next_balance field? See the code snippet below.
> This will also be skipped as a consequence of the commit e5fc6611 right?
>
> if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
> /*
> * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
> * a busy processor. So reset next_balance.
> */
> this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
> }
>
> Also the comment in the above snippet does not look right to me.
> It says "we are going idle" but the condition checks for pulled_task.
Yeah, that's odd indeed. Ingo did that back in dd41f596cda0d, I suspect
its an error, but..
So I think that should become !pulled_task || time_after().
--
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/
