On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:43:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 09:37:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Hurm.. So I've applied it, just to get this issue sorted, but I'm not > > > entirely sure I like it. > > > > > > I think I prefer ego's version because that makes it harder to get stuff > > > to run on !active,online cpus. I think we really want to be careful what > > > gets to run during that state. > > > > The original patch just did set_cpus_allowed one more time late enough > > so that the target kthread (in most cases) doesn't have to go through > > fallback rq selection afterwards. I don't know what the long term > > solution is but CPU_ONLINE callbacks should be able to bind kthreads > > to the new CPU one way or the other. > > Fair enough; clearly I need to stare harder. In any case, patch is on > its way to sched/urgent.
Thanks Tejun, Peter! > -- Regards gautham. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
