On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 04/08/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:04:43AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > >>On 04/08/2015 05:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>>On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:16:45PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote: > >>>>From: Chris Metcalf <cmetc...@ezchip.com> > >>>> > >>>>It's not clear that nohz_full is useful without isolcpus also > >>>>set, since otherwise the scheduler has to run periodically to > >>>>try to determine whether to steal work from other cores. > >>>So the Changelog and the patch don't seem to agree with one another. > >>> > >>>The Changelog states that nohz_full should depend on isolcpus. > >>The git commit message says "make nohz_full imply isolcpus". > >>That's consistent with the code. > >Well, but then the Changelog doesn't make any sense. > > Apparently the body of the commit message isn't as clear as it might be :-) > > It does say the same thing, though, basically that if nohz_full DOESN'T > imply isolcpus, that's a bad thing. I'm happy to reword the text to avoid > the double negative and say: > > nohz_full is only useful with isolcpus also set, since otherwise the > scheduler has to run periodically to try to determine whether to steal > work from other cores. > > Frederic, do you want me to respin the patch, or can you just update > the text of the commit message as above?
Please respin. Writing or fixing changelogs is what takes me most time :-) -- 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/
