From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758778Ab2DJN6r (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:58:47 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:32610 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753714Ab2DJN6q (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:58:46 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=T5EOvo2Q c=1 sm=0 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:17 a=XQbtiDEiEegA:10 a=hzoqAax4KOoA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=M29pHIjLk_o7-QnifkkA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.80.29 Message-ID: <1334066322.23924.204.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt() From: Steven Rostedt To: Kirill Tkhai Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:58:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <654301331942324@web109.yandex.ru> References: <1322774765.8386.2.camel@hp> <20120213172316.GA24145@home.goodmis.org> <944171329661049@web81.yandex.ru> <654301331942324@web109.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 03:58 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > Steven, what is about the patch from my previous message? Is everything ok? You're timing is impeccable. I was in Chemnitz, Germany when you sent this, and it too was lost in the noise ;-) I'll take a look at it today. Thanks! -- Steve > > Regards, > Kirill > > 19.02.2012, 18:17, "Kirill Tkhai" : > > 13.02.2012, 21:23, "Steven Rostedt" : > > > >> I wasn't on the Cc of the original message, but it was bounced to me > >> awhile ago. I'm cleaning out my email and came across it. > >> > >> Can you send me the latest version of this patch, either against latest > >> Linus, or against tip/master. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- Steve > >> > >> P.S. I'll be at ELC this week so it may not get processed right away. > > > > Migration status depends on a difference of weight from 0 and 1. > > If weight > 1 (<= 1) and old weight <= 1 (> 1) then task becomes > > pushable (or not pushable). We are not insterested in its exact > > values, is it 3 or 4, for example. > > > > Now if we are changing affinity from a set of 3 cpus to a set of 4, the- > > task will be dequeued and enqueued sequentially without important > > difference in comparison with initial state. The only difference is in > > internal representation of plist queue of pushable tasks and the fact > > that the task may won't be the first in a sequence of the same priority > > tasks. But it seems to me it gives nothing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tkhai Kirill