From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754700Ab2DWJzv (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:55:51 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:53230 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754226Ab2DWJzu (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:55:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4F952721.9030302@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:55:45 +0200 From: Juri Lelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, cfriesen@nortel.com, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@ericsson.com, liming.wang@windriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE data structures. References: <1333696481-3433-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> <1333696481-3433-4-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> <1335172098.28150.99.camel@twins> <4F95253F.4090005@gmail.com> <1335174564.28150.107.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1335174564.28150.107.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/23/2012 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 11:47 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote: >> On 04/23/2012 11:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote: >>>> +struct sched_dl_entity { >>>> + struct rb_node rb_node; >>>> + int nr_cpus_allowed; >>> >>> I think it would be all-round best to move >>> sched_rt_entity::nr_cpus_allowed out next to cpus_allowed. >> >> You mean unify them: a single nr_cpus_allowed after >> task_struct::cpus_allowed, right? > > Yes, no point in keeping that one value twice and in fact there's a > usage of p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed in sched/fair.c so its past time its > moved out of that rt specific thing. Sure. Since this is a small change, probably not strictly related to this patchset, may I wait to see the change in mainline? Thanks, - Juri