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
3 matches
Mail list logo