From: Robert Love <rml@mvista.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3.
Date: 16 Jun 2002 16:57:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1024271844.1476.26.camel@sinai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206161809480.9633-200000@e2>
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 10:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Feature backports:
>
> - nr_uninterruptible optimization. (This is a fairly straightforward
> and risk-less feature, and since it also made the backport easier, i
> included it.)
Yah, I agree - this is safe and good.
> - sched_setaffinity() & sched_getaffinity() syscalls on x86.
Do we want to introduce this into 2.4 now? I realize 2.4-ac is not 2.4
proper, but if there is a chance this interface could change...
> - BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
> -
> + if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
> + BUG();
Eh, why do this? BUG_ON is the same effect and it is more readable to
me... seems better that 2.5 gets 2.4-ac's behavior instead of the other
way around.
> +int idle_cpu(int cpu)
> +{
> + return cpu_curr(cpu) == cpu_rq(cpu)->idle;
> +}
> +
I did not include this in my original O(1) backport update because
nothing in 2.4-ac seems to use it... so why include it?
> /*
> * Valid priorities for SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are
> - * 1..MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1, valid priority for SCHED_OTHER is 0.
> + * 1..MAX_USER_RT_PRIO, valid priority for SCHED_OTHER is 0.
> */
Another case of 2.4-ac being right: the priority range is
1..MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1 (i.e. 1 to 99, inclusive).
> /*
> - * The first migration thread is started on CPU #0. This one can
> - * migrate the other migration threads to their destination CPUs.
> + * The first migration thread is started on CPU #0. This one can migrate
> + * the other migration threads to their destination CPUs.
> */
> if (cpu != 0) {
> while (!cpu_rq(cpu_logical_map(0))->migration_thread)
> yield();
> set_cpus_allowed(current, 1UL << cpu);
> }
> - printk("migration_task %d on cpu=%d\n", cpu, smp_processor_id());
> + printk("migration_task %d on cpu=%d\n",cpu,smp_processor_id());
> ret = setscheduler(0, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
> rq = this_rq();
> @@ -1632,5 +1813,4 @@
> while (!cpu_rq(cpu_logical_map(cpu))->migration_thread)
> schedule_timeout(2);
> }
> -
> -#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> +#endif
I think all three of these hunks look better in 2.4-ac... in all three
cases, the formatting seems better than in 2.5 IMO.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-16 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-13 19:21 [PATCH] 2.4-ac: sparc64 support for O(1) scheduler Robert Love
2002-06-14 4:25 ` David S. Miller
2002-06-14 17:32 ` Robert Love
2002-06-15 13:22 ` David S. Miller
2002-06-20 19:42 ` Alan Cox
2002-06-16 15:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-16 17:00 ` [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3 Ingo Molnar
2002-06-16 23:57 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-06-17 0:13 ` J.A. Magallon
2002-06-17 4:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 0:15 ` Robert Love
2002-06-17 3:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 3:57 ` Robert Love
2002-06-17 4:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 4:02 ` Robert Love
2002-06-17 4:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 4:49 ` [patch] 2.5.22 current scheduler bits #1 Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 3:24 ` [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3 Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 3:35 ` Robert Love
2002-06-17 4:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 7:50 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2002-06-17 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 8:23 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2002-06-17 9:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-17 9:34 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2002-06-18 7:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-19 1:05 ` Matthew Dobson
2002-06-20 20:22 ` Andrew Theurer
2002-06-24 0:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-17 16:26 ` Rusty Russell
2002-06-17 4:51 ` Toshiba PCToPIC97 PC Card freeze in 2.4.18 Stephen Satchell
2002-06-16 23:45 ` [PATCH] 2.4-ac: sparc64 support for O(1) scheduler Robert Love
2002-06-17 5:28 ` David S. Miller
2002-06-17 21:18 ` Robert Love
2002-06-14 22:00 ` Thomas Duffy
2002-06-15 13:35 ` David S. Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1024271844.1476.26.camel@sinai \
--to=rml@mvista.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.