On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> Yes, this version is more concise.
>
> >
> > Its a little more contained.
> >
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -2636,8 +2636,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
> > if (likely(prev->sched
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:31:57PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > The current code will call pick_next_task_fair a second time
> > in the slow path if we did not pull any task in our first try.
> > This is really unnecessary as we already know
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:31:57PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> The current code will call pick_next_task_fair a second time
> in the slow path if we did not pull any task in our first try.
> This is really unnecessary as we already know no task can
> be pulled and it doubles the delay for the cpu to e
The current code will call pick_next_task_fair a second time
in the slow path if we did not pull any task in our first try.
This is really unnecessary as we already know no task can
be pulled and it doubles the delay for the cpu to enter idle.
We instrumented some network workloads and that saw th
4 matches
Mail list logo