On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> wrote: > On 19/12/12 09:34, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> >> On 19 December 2012 14:53, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 19 déc. 2012 07:34, "Viresh Kumar" <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Can we resolve this issue now? I don't want anything during the release >>>> period >>>> this time. >>> >>> >>> The new version of the patchset should solve the concerns of everybody >> >> >> Morten, >> >> Can you confirm or cross-check that? Branch is: sched-pack-small-tasks-v2 >> > > If I understand the new version of "sched: secure access to other CPU > statistics" correctly, the effect of the patch is: > > Without the patch the cpu will appear to be busy if sum/period are not > coherent (sum>period). The same is true with the patch except in the > case where nr_running is 0. In this particular case the cpu will appear > not to be busy. I assume there is good reason why this particular case > is important?
Sorry for this late reply. It's not really more important than other but it's one case we can safely detect to prevent spurious spread of tasks. In addition, The incoherency occurs if both value are close so nr_running == 0 was the only condition that left to be tested > > In any case the patch is fine by me. > > Morten > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
