Re: [RFC PATCH 11/11] sched: Add comments to find_busiest_group() function.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:44:27PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > Add /** style comments around find_busiest_group(). Also add a few explanatory
> >   */
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >  static struct sched_group *
> >  find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
> > @@ -3593,17 +3613,31 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
> >  	update_sd_lb_stats(sd, this_cpu, idle, sd_idle, cpus,
> >  					balance, &sds);
> > 
> > +	/* Cases where imbalance does not exist from POV of this_cpu */
> > +	/* 1) this_cpu is not the appropriate cpu to perform load balancing
> > +	 *    at this level.
> > +	 * 2) There is no busy sibling group to pull from.
> > +	 * 3) This group is the busiest group.
> > +	 * 4) This group is more busy than the avg busieness at this
> > +	 *    sched_domain.
> > +	 * 5) The imbalance is within the specified limit.
> > +	 * 6) Any rebalance would lead to ping-pong
> > +	 */
> >  	if (balance && !(*balance))
> >  		goto ret;
> > 
> > -	if (!sds.busiest || sds.this_load >= sds.max_load
> > -		|| sds.busiest_nr_running == 0)
> > +	if (!sds.busiest || sd.busiest_nr_running == 0)
> 			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> should have been sds.busiest_nr_running. Hence the build failure on tip.
> 
> I think I missed compile testing this last patch.
> 
> Ingo, could you revert commit 7b6340ef884aff69a54f8a530c73ad9da0a7c388 in
> tip/balancing and commit the following patch instead?

sure - i've amended it and started testing it locally. If it passes 
testing it should show up in tip:master.

	Ingo