On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I think the check in idle_balance needs to be modified. > > If the domain *does not* have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set then > next_balance must still be set right. Does this patch fix it?
Is the ->next_balance calculation in idle_balance() necessary at all? rebalance_domains() would have programmed ->next_balance anyway, based on the nearest next_balance point of all (load-balance'able) domains. By repeating that calculation in idle_balance, are we covering any corner case? -- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
