On 18 October 2016 at 14:15, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:29:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Oct, at 01:10:17PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> > I'm entirely lost as to which patch we're talking about by now ;-) >> >> Heh, this one from Vincent, >> >> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161010173440.ga28...@linaro.org > > Ah, right. > > Seems like a sensible thing to do, and I suppose I should go finish my > (and yours) update_rq_clock() patches that supersede the patch referred > to in that thing and is depended upon. > > > It might make sense to have helper functions to evaluate those
The main issue is the number of parameters used in these conditions that makes helper function not really more readable. > conditions, because currently there's two instances of each, once in the > branch selection and then again (but inverted, we miss the == case fwiw) not sure to catch the comment about inverted and miss the == case The test splits runnable_load_avg is 3 ranges: [0 .. (min_runnable_load - imbalance)] : use the runnable_loab_avg/this_runnable_load which is significantly smaller ] (min_runnable_load - imbalance) .. (min_runnable_load + imbalance) [ : min_runnable_load and runnable_loab_avg/this_runnable_load are close so we compare min_load_avg with avg_load/this_avg_load to choose [(min_runnable_load + imbalance) .. ULONG_MAX] : use min_runnable_load The condition is used when we look for the best other group in the sched_domain and to compare the local group with this best other group > in the return NULL case. > > >
