[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADZ9YHj5EUBGkv4E_yAoNqL5nnZ3XFr_axLmiNtNZF3uTmP6kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:21:12 +0600
From: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] sched: update_top_cache_domain only at the times of
building sched domain.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:20:20PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>> You mean using sd == NULL rather than using update_cache_domain variable ?
>
> Yes, note how:
>
> @@ -6109,7 +6110,7 @@ static void detach_destroy_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map)
> - cpu_attach_domain(NULL, &def_root_domain, i);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> Always has NULL for sd? Which means you can do:
>
> @@ -5138,7 +5138,8 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct root_domain *rd, int cpu)
> rcu_assign_pointer(rq->sd, sd);
> destroy_sched_domains(tmp, cpu);
>
> - update_top_cache_domain(cpu);
> + if (sd)
> + update_top_cache_domain(cpu);
> }
>
> /* cpus with isolated domains */
Okay, got it. Will submit an updated patch!
Thanks
Rakib.
--
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