[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5568.1336171672@neuling.org>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 08:47:52 +1000
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@...dia.com>
cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@...nel.org>,
'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
'Christoph Lameter' <cl@...two.org>,
'Stephen Rothwell' <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
'Benjamin Herrenschmidt' <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
'David Rientjes' <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Enable arch-specific asym packing option in sched domain
Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@...dia.com> wrote:
> >> A repost doesn't make it right to add sibling (SMT) properties to a package/socket and will still upset Power7.
>
> Agreed. I only fixed the whitespace and commitId.
>
> arch_sd_sibling_asym_packing() is already present under ifdef CONFIG_SMT.
> I didn't touch that. I only added it to SD_CPU_INIT for all cpu's.
> I assumed Power7 shouldn't use SD_CPU_INIT.
You are using sibling at the cpu level. POWER7 sets this at the sibling
level and we don't really want it at the cpu level.
> I don't understand Power7 arch to comment on impact.
> Michael Neuling should review this carefully and advise.
Ask Peter said, it's broken for POWER7. We don't want to set this at
the cpu level.
> Maybe I should define a separate weak symbol, say
> arch_sd_bias_to_lower_num_cpu()? Then Power7 can define
> arch_sd_sibling_asym_packing() to be '1' and it will not break all-cpu
> init.
This sounds better but I'd follow the old name call it
arch_sd_cpu_asym_packing()
Mikey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists