On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:36:27AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > However I was thinking that a better fix would be to reorder the way we call > update_group_power() and cpu_attach_domain(). Why do we need to do > update_group_power() of the groups of the sched domains that would probably > degenerate in cpu_attach_domain()? So it seemed best to move update_group_power() > to after cpu_attach_domain() so that it saves unnecessary iterations over > sched domains which could degenerate, and it fixes the issue that you have brought out > as well. See below for the patch: So how is publishing the domain tree before we've set these values at all going to help avoid the divide-by-zero problem? Also its just terribly bad form to publish something before you're done with initialization. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|