From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757473AbYGONOv (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:14:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755285AbYGONOm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:14:42 -0400 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.28]:40009 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755172AbYGONOm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:14:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=rPwjqyvYi94t4BtXw78sRjvVyqAo1Bh1WwWXU7KX0XegtG6/MB/cR3wfw+hFhmfBgs SfgCT0hKjYs6sTJoVsftFnYzq+ajEDzDaIdno8tA2Ehs9sC2LE/4RY+FU/suZ+Au6VOm HDEMach+ZeMhmSQMk3J0rOlI6wTtc+V4C7qDY= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:14:38 +0200 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" To: "Gregory Haskins" Subject: Re: [sched-devel, patch-rfc] rework #2 of "prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratable ones" Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Steven Rostedt" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Linux Kernel" In-Reply-To: <487C6873.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1214947935.5658.11.camel@earth> <487C6873.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2008/7/15 Gregory Haskins : >>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM, in message > , "Dmitry > Adamushko" wrote: >> 2008/7/1 Dmitry Adamushko : >>> >>> Finally, this new version compiles and boots (applied a minor compilation >> fix). >>> Functionality is not yet fully tested though. >>> >>> It's on top of today's tip tree. >>> >>> Any objections to this approach? >> >> [ ping ] >> >> Gregory or anyone else, any feedback on this one? > > Hi Dmitry, > A brief inspection of the patch looks good. I am still not convinced we need to worry > about this condition anymore, however. Neither am I. It's just that (I think): (a) either we remove this whole new 'concept' (as it's implemented now) completely; (b) or do it in a more generic way (like with this patch). Thanks for the feedback! > > Regards, > -Greg -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko