Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764898AbXFSCSI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:18:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759104AbXFSCR4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:17:56 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:15035 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754242AbXFSCRz (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:17:55 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,436,1175497200"; d="scan'208";a="97849005" Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:13:43 -0700 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: Christoph Lameter , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Dinakar Guniguntala , Dmitry Adamushko , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: v2.6.21.4-rt11 Message-ID: <20070619021342.GC7160@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20070615151452.GC9301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070615195545.GA28872@elte.hu> <20070616011605.GH9301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070616084434.GG2559@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070616161213.GA2994@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070618151215.GA9750@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070618173558.GA17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070619015232.GE17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070619015232.GE17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1072 Lines: 23 On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified. > > > > If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then > > next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it? > > Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all? > rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based > on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains. > By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case? rebalance_domains() have programmed ->next_balance based on 'busy' state. And now, as it is going to 'idle', this routine is recalculating the next_balance based on 'idle' state. thanks, suresh - 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/