Subject: Re: [patch] sched: optimize activate_task for RT task - v2
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1163574019.6175.30.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
References: <000401c70848$520252e0$d834030a@amr.corp.intel.com>
	 <1163574019.6175.30.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:24:06 +0100
Message-Id: <1163579046.7035.29.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 845
Lines: 19

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 08:00 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Personally, I think it's best to leave it as it is.  With that change,
> if someone changes policy while the task is waiting to get cpu, it will
> be requeued, and the on-runqueue bonus logic will then end up using
> wildly inaccurate information.

Bah, that's inverted.  interactive_sleep() will never be true after a
rt->non-rt policy change while enqueued with your change, so on-runqueue
bonus will be disabled where it otherwise might have been enabled.  Not
terribly interesting in any case given the likelihood, but still...

	-Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/