From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753807Ab0DMVG5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:35097 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752246Ab0DMVG4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=aMGUWQFvjWnq/SgH2dfsznzLy0pn9g6kMqYEzPnqBx7+/QenIpJpJ/5LD/lhFAB7xJ uub3BOmvsLTZJnsILTfF+INbBCc6uj0w9Td409GotuWvk20PdleMPvviSuSkDkm6TZUS Jl3S9WPcuTedby1rKTbPsW4Wa3hFV+fRaDIWA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1269870072-22449-1-git-send-email-chase.douglas@canonical.com> <1269870072-22449-2-git-send-email-chase.douglas@canonical.com> <20100401122740.a1ae80a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100413133903.9d38a6ee.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:06:55 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1468668d56b50d6f Message-ID: Subject: Re: [REGRESSION 2.6.30][PATCH 1/1] sched: defer idle accounting till after load update period From: Chase Douglas To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:01:59 +0200 (CEST) >> Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Chase Douglas wrote: >> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > > >> > > Thomas Gleixner seems to think this isn't the best approach (later >> > > email in this thread), so I'm deferring sending it unless someone is >> > > still interested in this approach. >> > >> > Well, it's a good workaround for now I think, I just answered Andrews >> > question whether we can't do any better :) >> > >> >> So... should we merge Chase's patch? > > I have no better solution right now. Peter ? I've made one small change to it. Checking the atomic .counter variable probably isn't the most portable, and atomic_long_read() should be portable and not add any overhead on sane platforms, so I swapped out the check against .counter with an atomic_long_read(). I'll resend it shortly. -- Chase