On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:37 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 18:15 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:04 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:59 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:51 -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Tim Chen > > > > > <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > [] > > > > > If we want to do idle load balancing only when it is due for a > > > > > balance, shouldn't the above just be "if (time_after(jiffies, > > > > > rq->next_balance))"? > > > > > > > > If rq->next_balance and jiffies are equal, then > > > > time_after(jiffies, rq->next_balance) check will be false and > > > > you will not do balance. But actually you want to balance > > > > for this case so the jiffies+1 was used. > > > > > > So maybe I should switch the check to > > > if (time_before(rq->next_balance, jiffies)) > > > > time_after_eq() or time_is_after_eq_jiffies() > > > > > > I prefer time_after_eq to keep the code style consistent with the > rest of the code in fair.c.
Should all the code be updated then? We should use the existing interfaces if available. -- 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/
