Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove idle_balance() declaration in sched.h

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 02/11/2014 04:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 02/11/2014 04:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:01:04PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > The idle_balance() function is called within a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP section.
> > > >
> > > > Remove its declaration in sched.h for !CONFIG_SMP because it is pointless.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The below again makes a horrible mess of idle_balance() -- which you
> > > tried to clean up.. but it does rid us of some #ifdef goo.
> > >
> > > Hmmm?
> >
> > Yes, it sounds ok.
> >
> > Why is idle_enter_fair() called unconditionally in idle_balance() ?
> > Isn't the call in pick_next_task_idle enough ?  Shouldn't be called when we
> > will go to idle effectively ?
> >
> > If I am not wrong idle_enter_fair() is called from idle_balance() but a task
> > may be pulled, so we the next task won't be the idle task and idle_exit_fair
> > won't be called at put_prev_task.
> >
> > May be I missed this change which was done at purpose in the previous
> > patchset you sent...
>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/CAKfTPtAMmhq0tBpu+pk_uzwrfUM-6Fz4Do1yrzc4NRQS4cZ_-A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I seem to be terminally confused on the subject, but Vincent explains it
> there I think.

Ok, thanks. I will read again the thread carefully.

  -- Daniel


--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/