[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337197242.4281.6.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:40:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, smuckle@...cinc.com, khilman@...com,
Robin.Randhawa@....com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
thebigcorporation@...il.com, venki@...gle.com,
panto@...oniou-consulting.com, mingo@...e.hu, paul.brett@...el.com,
pdeschrijver@...dia.com, pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de,
fweisbec@...il.com, geoff@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-sched-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Plumbers: Tweaking scheduler policy micro-conf RFP
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 00:19 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> Let me take a case of two-socket,quad-core,HT x86 (Nehalem):
>
> SDTL_SHARE_POWERLINE should be passed along with a cpumask that
> represents sd_init_CPU or cpu_cpu_mask today. So the number of
> domains we build per-cpu will depend on the topology and the
> sched_powersavings settings.
No, the topology should at all time be independent of powersavings,
current x86's topology depending on that is one of the biggest warts
ever. Also sched_powersavings, doesn't actually exist anymore.
The NHM-EP from your example should do just two levels since mc and cpu
are identical, I guess we could add a pass that merges identical masks
so you can still specify 3 levels if you want.
The NUMA stuff is done automatically based on SLIT, so you don't need to
go above the socket level.
--
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