On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 08:56:40AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Well, I won't argue that this hasn't changed, but I'd argue that this change > > isn't a bad change: (a) it restores the flags to their meanings and makes > > them > > Have you any proof that this change is not a bad thing ? Moreover have > you got proof that it's a good thing ? Changing the meaning and the > behavior of flags, just because you find it elegant, doesn't seem to > be enough for me. > > So if you just want to rename the flags please keep current behavior unchange
Interestingly, I don't disagree with what you said, it is not just a renaming, so I said the following: "(b) we definitely need further work to improve select_task_rq_fair()" That said, the changed behavior should be addressed, the waker CPU should be a valid candidate for all SD_BALANCE_*, and whatnot...
