Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751952Ab0ATImN (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:42:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750842Ab0ATImM (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:42:12 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:33483 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775Ab0ATImL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:42:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4B56C314.7000908@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:47:16 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org, Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/40] sched: add wakeup/sleep sched_notifiers and allow NULL notifier ops References: <1263776272-382-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1263776272-382-7-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1263808633.4283.152.camel@laptop> <4B5446A1.7070306@kernel.org> <1263818967.4283.459.camel@laptop> <4B55050B.5020600@kernel.org> <4B556D44.1060101@kernel.org> <1263891302.4283.641.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1263891302.4283.641.camel@laptop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 901 Lines: 25 Hello, On 01/19/2010 05:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I think so, still doing a wakeup from a wakeup sounds like trouble in > that it has the potential to a thundering herd, so I'd really rather > you'd not do something like that. cmwq is not gonna do that and if someone is gonna do that there of course needs to be some sort of limiting. I still feel a bit uneasy about calling out external callbacks before scheduler internal state update is complete. If you still think moving it right below activate_task() would be better, I'll move it and modify the comment above try_to_wake_up_local(). Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/