On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > 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?
rebalance_domains() have programmed ->next_balance based on 'busy' state. And now, as it is going to 'idle', this routine is recalculating the next_balance based on 'idle' state. thanks, suresh - 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/
