From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934655Ab3DINQM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:11473 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759532Ab3DINQL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:16:11 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Pu4Rnnw3 c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=DRErq4JoInYA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=7MGjZ8EY_YsA:10 a=JfrnYn6hAAAA:8 a=D19gQVrFAAAA:8 a=v5fiLApgLk14Jc-GrVQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=3Rfx1nUSh_UA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1365513368.25498.47.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable_avg update with rt tasks From: Steven Rostedt To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , Mike Galbraith Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:16:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1365084959-28374-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1365497753.2609.163.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:18 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 9 April 2013 10:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 16:15 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> Changes since V2: > >> - remove useless definition for UP platform > >> - rebased on top of Steven Rostedt's patches : > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/12/558 > > > > So what's the status of those patches? I still worry about the extra > > context switch overhead for the high-frequency idle scenario. > > I don't know. I have seen a pulled answer from Ingo but can't find the > commits in the tip tree. > > Steve, have you got more info about the status of your patches ? > Yeah, I asked Ingo to revert it due to Peter's concerns. I was able to get the latencies I needed without that patch set. That made it not so urgent. Can you rebase your patches doing something similar? That is, still use the pre/post_schedule_idle() calls, but don't base it off of my patch set. Thanks, -- Steve