В Пн, 23/06/2014 в 12:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:24:10PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > @@ -3790,6 +3803,12 @@ static void __maybe_unused > > unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq) > > cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1; > > if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq)) > > unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq); > > + > > + /* > > + * Offline rq is schedulable till cpu is completely disabled > > + * in take_cpu_down(), so we prevent new cfs throttling here. > > + */ > > + cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = 0; > > Does it make sense to clear this before calling unthrottle_cfs_rq()? > Just to make sure they're in the right order..
This looks good for me. I'll test and resend. > > > } > > } -- 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/
