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