Hi Mike,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 11:14 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
>> tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
>> preempted, our new started task would
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 11:14 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
> tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
> preempted, our new started task would get a relative stale rq clock
> which is updated during the previous
Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
preempted, our new started task would get a relative stale rq clock
which is updated during the previous task enqueue, or the last schedule
clock update.
If we want
Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
preempted, our new started task would get a relative stale rq clock
which is updated during the previous task enqueue, or the last schedule
clock update.
If we want
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 11:14 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
preempted, our new started task would get a relative stale rq clock
which is updated during the previous task
Hi Mike,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Mike Galbraith bitbuc...@online.de wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 11:14 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
Since we would update rq clock at task enqueue/dequeue, or schedule
tick. If we don't update the rq clock when our previous task get
preempted, our new
6 matches
Mail list logo