public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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, &param);
>  	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


  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox