* [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq
@ 2010-01-29 6:56 Yong Zhang
2010-01-29 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yong Zhang @ 2010-01-29 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Thomas Gleixner, rusty
member rt_se of struct rt_rq is a duplicate of tg->rt_se[cpu].
So we can remove one of them. After checking CFS, I think
rt_rq->rt_se can be removed for some kinds of consistence.
Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Yong Zhang (2):
sched: change usage of rt_rq->rt_se to rt_rq->tg->rt_se[cpu]
sched: remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq
kernel/sched.c | 2 --
kernel/sched_rt.c | 10 ++++++++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq
2010-01-29 6:56 [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq Yong Zhang
@ 2010-01-29 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-01 5:12 ` Yong Zhang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2010-01-29 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yong Zhang; +Cc: linux-kernel, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, rusty
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:56 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> member rt_se of struct rt_rq is a duplicate of tg->rt_se[cpu].
> So we can remove one of them. After checking CFS, I think
> rt_rq->rt_se can be removed for some kinds of consistence.
Looks good I think.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq
2010-01-29 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2010-02-01 5:12 ` Yong Zhang
2010-02-01 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yong Zhang @ 2010-02-01 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: linux-kernel, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, rusty
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:56 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>> member rt_se of struct rt_rq is a duplicate of tg->rt_se[cpu].
>> So we can remove one of them. After checking CFS, I think
>> rt_rq->rt_se can be removed for some kinds of consistence.
>
> Looks good I think.
Hi Peter,
Seems nobody has objection on the two patches.
Can you pick them up?
Or should I resend the patchset again?
Thanks,
Yong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq
2010-02-01 5:12 ` Yong Zhang
@ 2010-02-01 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2010-02-01 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yong Zhang; +Cc: linux-kernel, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, rusty
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 13:12 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:56 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> >> member rt_se of struct rt_rq is a duplicate of tg->rt_se[cpu].
> >> So we can remove one of them. After checking CFS, I think
> >> rt_rq->rt_se can be removed for some kinds of consistence.
> >
> > Looks good I think.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Seems nobody has objection on the two patches.
> Can you pick them up?
I'll take them, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-01 9:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-01-29 6:56 [RFC 0/2 PATCH] remove member rt_se from struct rt_rq Yong Zhang
2010-01-29 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-01 5:12 ` Yong Zhang
2010-02-01 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox