On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:42:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > +redo: > > > > One behavioral change worth noting here is that in the redo case if a > > CPU has become idle we'll continue trying to load-balance in the > > !new-idle case. > > > > This could be unpleasant in the case where a package has a pinned busy > > core allowing this and a newly idle cpu to start dueling for load. > > > > While more deterministically bad in this case now, it could racily do > > this before anyway so perhaps not worth worrying about immediately. > > Ah, because the old code would effectively redo the check and find the > idle cpu and thereby our cpu would no longer be the balance_cpu. > > Indeed. And I don't think this was an intentional change. I'll go put > the redo back before should_we_balance().
Ah, yes. It isn't my intention. Please fix it. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
