On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com> wrote: > On 08/26/2013 08:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:45:57AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: >>>> @@ -5157,6 +5158,13 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *s >>>> tmp->parent = parent->parent; >>>> if (parent->parent) >>>> parent->parent->child = tmp; >>>> + /* >>>> + * Transfer SD_PREFER_SIBLING down in case of a >>>> + * degenerate parent; the spans match for this >>>> + * so the property transfers. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (parent->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) >>>> + tmp->flags |= SD_PREFER_SIBLING; >>>> destroy_sched_domain(parent, cpu); >>>> } else >>>> tmp = tmp->parent; >>>> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <p...@google.com> >> >> BTW, did that comment make sense to you or would you suggest something >> different? I had/am having a hard time with that comment. Somehow it >> leaves me wanting. I know I understand the issue now, but I'll doubt the >> comment will suffice in a years time :/ > > The comment made sense to me :)
It makes sense once you read the code. That we push down is somehow counter intuitive in the reading. > > -- > All rights reversed. -- 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/
