> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
>
> =20
>>>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to do=20
>>>> with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to also=20
>>>> have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but further=20
>>>> testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere. So please=20
>>>> ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled in, but I don't=20
>>>> think you have). Ill try to look into this issue as well.
>>>> =20
>>> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/*=20
>>> yet, correct?
>>> =20
>>> =20
>> Here is the original thread:
>>
>>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416
>>
>> I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet.
>>
>> Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as=20
>> well. (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct"=20
>> but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out=20
>> first.
>> =20
>
> ok, thanks. I'm curious, what are those ripple effects? Stability or=20
> performance?
> =20