Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE

[Dietmar Eggemann]

On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog.
> > >
> > > OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's
> > > feedback?
> > Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem.
> >
> > > Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first
> > > hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in
> > > detach_tasks().

This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use 
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this?

> > > But your second hunk, which ignores the actual load of tasks in favour
> > > of just moving _something_ already, is utterly dangerous if not coupled
> > > with these two other conditions, so arguably that too should be under
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> > I see your point. Will round both with CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> I have upload a new patch, please find it here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334